ReviewCureus2024
Precision Versus Practicality: A Comprehensive Analysis of Robotic Right Colectomy Versus Laparoscopic Right Colectomy, Future Directions, Biases, Research Gaps, and Their Implications.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Updates in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for patients ≥ 65 years of age: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating the safety of robotic total gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer against the conventional laparoscopic approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic vs laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with Billroth I and II reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Feasibility of robotic-assisted right colectomy using the "squeezing approach".Surgery today · 2026Article
- Global research trends in robot-assisted colectomy: a bibliometric and visualization analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Reply to commentary on: "Comparing the operative, oncological, post-operative outcomes and complications of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of pancreatic and periampullary cancers" by George Tantallakis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world and second in cancer-related mortality. It is most prevalent in the developed world and is often associated with lifestyle factors along with age and genetics. The inclusion criteria comprised high-level evidence, such as randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews, conducted between 2012 and 2023, that directly compared the two approaches. The review reveals mixed outcomes between robotic right colectomy (RRC) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The robotic approach was associated with longer operative duration and higher costs but with decreased blood loss and quicker recovery compared to laparoscopy. On the other hand, no major differences were observed regarding lymph node retrieval, duration of hospitalization, and surgical complications. Regarding future directions, it is evident that the focus needs to shift beyond the operative parameters and to patient-centered outcomes, which are underreported. Also, more randomized clinical trials are required, focusing on safety, efficacy, and long-term quality of life. Costs-benefit analyses are required to weigh the benefits of robotic surgery against the implementation and practice costs. Additionally, improvements in surgeons' training may be necessary to reduce the operative duration and potentially decrease operational costs. Finally, standardization of research protocols may be necessary to reduce biases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.