ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Robotic versus open and laparoscopic pelvic exenterations for pelvic cancer: a multicenter propensity-matched analysis in Japan.
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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic Beyond Total Mesorectal Excision (bTME) for locally advanced and recurrent anorectal cancer: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of survival and mortality in pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancies: a systematic review, meta-analyses, and meta-regression study.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2025Pooled it
- Short- and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive vs. open pelvic exenteration in rectal tumours: a focused meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical Implementation and Perioperative Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Pelvic Exenteration for Primary Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Japanese Experience.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Essential Updates 2024-2026: Advances in Colorectal Cancer Surgery.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Sex-related differences in postoperative complications after pelvic exenteration and their relationship with surgical invasiveness in a multicenter study.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Robotic total pelvic exenteration using a transanal-first approach for locally advanced rectal cancer occupying the pelvis: a video vignette.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted Total Pelvic Exenteration for Rectal Cancer Using the Hugo™ RAS System: First Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Rectal Resection with Hysterectomy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Using the hinotori Surgical Robot System: The First Ever Case Report.Yonago acta medica · 2025Article
- First-intention EUS-guided transluminal drainage with LAMS: an effective and safe method for management of fluid collections after any kind of surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Factor analysis of postsurgical gastroparesis syndrome after right hemicolectomy for colon cancer.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Advances in beyond total mesorectal excision surgery: Behind the scenes.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 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
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic exenteration (PE) is the last resort for achieving a complete cure for pelvic cancer; however, it is burdensome for patients. Minimally invasive surgeries, including robot-assisted surgery, have been widely used to treat malignant tumors and have also recently been used in PE. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted PE (RPE) by comparing the outcomes of open PE (OPE) with those of conventional laparoscopic PE (LPE) for treating pelvic tumors.
methodsFollowing the ethics committee approval, a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients who underwent pelvic exenteration between January 2012 and October 2022 was conducted. Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were collected. A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis was performed to minimize group selection bias.
resultsIn total, 261 patients met the study criteria, of whom 61 underwent RPE, 90 underwent OPE, and 110 underwent LPE. After propensity score matching, 50 pairs were created for RPE and OPE and 59 for RPE and LPE. RPE was associated with significantly less blood loss (RPE vs. OPE: 408 mL vs. 2385 ml, p < 0.001), lower transfusion rate (RPE vs. OPE: 32% vs. 82%, p < 0.001), and lower rate of complications over Clavien-Dindo grade II (RPE vs. OPE: 48% vs. 74%, p = 0.013; RPE vs. LPE: 48% vs. 76%, p = 0.002).
conclusionThis multicenter study suggests that RPE reduces blood loss and transfusion compared with OPE and has a lower rate of complications compared with OPE and LPE in patients with locally advanced and recurrent pelvic tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38886231What 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.