ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Comparing advanced platforms for local excision of rectal lesions.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic surgery (R-TAMIS): a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Transanal robotic versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for complex distal colorectal lesions: a comparative study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Endorobotic submucosal dissection using the da Vinci SP system: a 101-case experience in robotic transanal surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransanal surgery facilitates organ preservation in select patients with benign and early malignant rectal lesions to avoid the functional consequences of radical surgery. The transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) platform created a standard for local excision with lower margin positivity and recurrence rates than traditional transanal excision. The single-port robot (SP r) presents a promising alternative transanal platform. The goal of this study was to compare perioperative and pathologic outcomes of TEM and SP r for excision of rectal lesions.
methodsA review of consecutive patients who underwent local excision of rectal lesions at a tertiary referral center from 1/2001 to 5/2022 was performed. Cases were stratified into TEM or SP rTAMIS in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort, adjusting for all baseline characteristics. Clinical, tumor-specific, and perioperative outcomes were compared using χ
resultsMatching resulted 50 patients in each cohort. Groups had similar age, gender, body mass index, comorbidity, diagnosis, lesion characteristics, and neoadjuvant chemoradiation rates. There were no intraoperative complications in either cohort. Three SP rTAMIS cases were converted intraoperatively; there were no conversions in TEM. SP rTAMIS had significantly shorter operative times than TEM (mean 104 vs. 245, p = 0.027). The rates of positive distal margins (2% TEM, 0% SP rTAMIS) and piecemeal resection (4% TEM, 0% SP rTAMIS) were similar. SP rTAMIS had significantly lower postoperative morbidity rates than TEM (9% vs. 20%, p = 0.031). There was no mortality in either cohort.
conclusionsSP robotics provided high-quality outcomes similar to TEM for local excision of rectal lesions. SP robotics had faster operative time with comparable clinical and oncologic outcomes to TEM. These early data are promising for expanding use of SP robotic platforms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38811430What 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.