ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2024
Robotic
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic versus Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus open surgery for gallbladder cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity-score-matched studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
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
backgroundRobotic surgery (RS) is gaining popularity; however, evidence for abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer (RC) is scarce.
aimTo compare the efficacy of RS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) in APR for RC.
methodsWe retrospectively identified patients with RC who underwent APR by RS or LS from April 2016 to June 2022. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. To reduce the effect of potential confounding factors, propensity score matching was used, with a 1:1 ratio between the RS and LS groups. A meta-analysis of seven trials was performed to compare the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic APR for RC surgery.
resultsOf 133 patients, after propensity score matching, there were 42 patients in each group. The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the RS group (17/42, 40.5%) than in the LS group (27/42, 64.3%) (
conclusionOur study shows that RS is a safe and effective approach for APR in RC and offers better short-term outcomes than LS.
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.