SynthesisAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2024
Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systemic inflammatory response after robotic versus laparoscopic abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis with colorectal cancer subgroup analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond robotic platforms: artificial intelligence and the emergence of intelligent surgical ecosystems in colorectal surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Quality, transparency, and readability of AI chatbot responses for patient counseling in robot-assisted colorectal cancer resection: a cross-sectional evaluation.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Hartmann reversal is associated with reduced postoperative complications compared with laparoscopic approach: a propensity-weighted NSQIP study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A prospective, single-center investigation of the single-port robotic platform for cholecystectomy, gastrectomy and anti-reflux operations.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Treatment in 2026: An Updated Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- How robotic platforms have expanded the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery: a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Review
- Global research trends in robot-assisted colectomy: a bibliometric and visualization analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Four Screening Tools for Detecting Low Muscle Mass and Sarcopenia in Preoperative Older Japanese Patients with Colorectal Cancer According to the AWGS 2019 Criteria.Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls · 2026Article
- Robotic surgery in France: insights from a national administrative database on utilization, access, and efficiency.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- EMVI as an independent predictor of recurrence and the role of chemotherapy in N0 colonic adenocarcinoma: retrospective Cox regression analysis (2015-2022).International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Open, Laparoscopic, and robotic approaches in colorectal surgery: a comprehensive review with focus on colorectal cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Comparative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic anterior rectal resection for cM0 mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma: A 10-year retrospective analysis of patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery: a comparative assessment of outcomes, complications, recovery, and cost.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Review
- Comparative clinical efficacy of three surgical modalities for the treatment of malignant tumours of the left hemicolon.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional laparoscopy: What is the evidence?Veterinary surgery : VS · 2025Review
- Innovation and the publishing gambit.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRobotic surgery (RS) is gaining prominence in colorectal procedures owing to advantages like three-dimensional vision and enhanced dexterity, particularly in rectal surgery. Although recent reviews report similar outcomes between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and RS, this study investigates the evolving trends in outcomes over time, paralleling the increasing experience in RS.
methodsA systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted of randomised controlled trials exploring postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing RS or LS for colorectal pathology. The primary outcome measure was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Randomised controlled trials were identified from the PubMed
resultsOf 491 articles screened, 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of postoperative complications revealed no significant difference between RS and LS (relative risk [RR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.18,
conclusionsAs experience in RS grows, evidence suggests an increasing safety profile for patients. Meta-regression revealed a significant temporal trend with complication rates favouring RS over LS. Heterogeneous reporting of complications hindered subgroup analysis of minor and major complications. LS remains quicker. Rising adoption of RS coupled with emerging evidence is expected to further elucidate its clinical efficacy.
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.