ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Robotic
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological, perioperative, and survival-related outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Impact of Surgical and Anesthetic Procedures after Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study (The PROCOL Study).Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Utility of High-positioning Pelvic Pads in Laparoscopic Sigmoid Colon and Rectal Surgeries.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe usefulness of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been reported; however, few reports exist on robotic abdominoperineal resection (APR). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery to determine their usefulness in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who had undergone preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT). PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 43 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent preoperative CRT and robotic (22 patients) or laparoscopic APR (21 patients) between December 2012 and September 2022. We examined the short- and long-term outcomes in the robotic and laparoscopic groups.
resultsThe median follow-up durations were 36 and 48 months for the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. No significant differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, or overall complication rates were observed. However, the incidence of organ/space surgical site infection (SSI) was significantly lower in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (9.1% vs. 38.1%, p=0.034) and the 3-year overall survival rate was significantly higher in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic group (95% vs. 67%, p=0.029).
conclusionRobotic APR was associated with a significantly lower rate of organ/space SSIs than the laparoscopic approach, indicating the usefulness of the robotic approach.
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.