ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of early surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection reported by a busy district general hospital in England.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of robotic colorectal surgery programs worldwide and a comprehensive description of local robotic training programme.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Structured robotic colorectal training in a non-tertiary NHS hospital: a 502-case consecutive cohort implementation study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Single-center experience with robotic colorectal surgery for benign indications.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Approaches-A Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Rethinking health technology assessment in robotic surgery: an EFISDS-TROGSS position paper. Official position paper of the European Federation - International Society for Digestive Surgery (EFISDS) and The Robotic Global Surgical Society (TROGSS).Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Water Under the Bridge: Ureteral Injury After Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery during institutional transition: a 10-year sequential cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the postoperative analgesic effectiveness of erector spinae plane block ın patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery: a prospective observational study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Observational
- Robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery at the operational level: an investigation of surgeons' perspectives.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Robot-Assisted Colorectal Cancer Surgery Mitigates Early Postoperative Immunosuppression and Angiogenesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Higher hospital frailty risk score is predictive of 90-day readmission after minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery: a national readmission database analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Robot-Assisted Total Proctocolectomy for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis with Multiple Colorectal Cancers Using the Hugo RAS System.Surgical case reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Impact of robotic surgery on postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction following minimally invasive colorectal surgery: incidence, risk factors, and short-term outcomes.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic platforms provide a stable tool with high-definition views and improved ergonomics compared to laparoscopic approaches. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the intra- and short-term postoperative results of oncological resections performed robotically (RCR) and laparoscopically (LCR) at a single centre. Between February 2020 and October 2022, retrospective data on RCR were compared to LCR undertaken during the same period. Parameters compared include total operative time, length of stay (LOS), re-admission rates, 30-day morbidity. 100 RCR and 112 LCR satisfied inclusion criteria. There was no difference between the two group's demographic and tumour characteristics. Overall, median operative time was shorter in LCR group [200 vs. 247.5 min, p < 0.005], but this advantage was not observed with pelvic and muti-quadrant resections. There was no difference in the rate of conversion [5(5%) vs. 5(4.5%), p > 0.95]. With respect to perioperative outcomes, there was no difference in the overall morbidity, or mortality between RCR and LCR, in particular requirement for blood transfusion [3(3%) vs. 5(4.5%), p 0.72], prolonged ileus [9(9%) vs. 15(13.2%), p 0.38], surgical site infections [5(4%) vs. 5(4.4%), p > 0.95], anastomotic leak [7(7%) vs. 5(4.4%), p 0.55], and re-operation rate [9(9%) vs. 7(6.3%), p 0.6]. RCR had shorter LOS by one night, but this did not reach statistical significance. No difference was observed in completeness of resection but there was a statically significant increase in lymph node harvest in the robotic series. Robotic approach to oncological colorectal resections is safe, with comparable intra- and peri-operative morbidity and mortality to laparoscopic surgery.
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.