Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38951249›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2024

Peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes of robotic versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

A Y Y Mohamedahmed, S Zaman, A A Wuheb, A Ismail, M Nnaji, A A Alyamani, H A Eltyeb, N A Yassin

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Influence of computed tomography-based pelvimetric parameters and surgical approaches on surgical difficulty in mid‑low rectal cancer.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

A Y Y Mohamedahmed *Department of Colorectal and General Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, UK. Dr.aliyasen1@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1219-7571
S Zaman *Department of General Surgery, Sandwell and West, Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK. shafquatzaman@nhs.net.
A A WuhebDepartment of Colorectal and General Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, UK.
A IsmailDepartment of Colorectal and General Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, UK.
M NnajiDepartment of Colorectal and General Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, UK.
A A AlyamaniDepartment of Colorectal and General Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, UK.
H A EltyebDepartment of General Surgery, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
N A YassinColorectal Surgery Department, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComparative outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (rTME) and trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in patients with low rectal cancer were evaluated.

methodsA systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Comparative studies of rTME versus TaTME for low rectal cancer were included. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, and Clavien-Dindo complication rate. Total operative time, conversion to open surgery, intra-operative blood loss, intensive therapy unit (ITU) and total hospital length of stay (LOS), oncological outcomes and functional outcomes were the other evaluated outcome parameters.

resultsA total of 12 studies with a total number of 3025 patients divided between rTME (n = 1881) and TaTME (n = 1144) groups were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups for total operative time (P = 0.39), conversion to open surgery (P = 0.29) and intra-operative blood loss (P = 0.62). Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complication rate (P = 0.47), anastomotic leak (P = 0.89), rates of re-operation (P = 0.62) and re-admission (P = 0.92), R0 resections (P = 0.52), ITU LOS (P = 0.63) and total hospital LOS (P = 0.30) also showed similar results between the two groups. However, the rTME group had higher rates of total harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.04) and complete total mesorectal excision (TME) resections (P = 0.05). Albeit with a limited dataset, the Wexner and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) scores showed better functional results in the rTME group compared with the TaTME group (P = 0.0009 and P = 0.00001, respectively).

conclusionCompared with TaTME, rTME seems to provide better functional outcomes, higher lymph node yield and more complete TME resections with a similar post-operative complications profile.

Indexed as

Length of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsProctectomyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTransanal Endoscopic SurgeryAdultAgedAnastomotic LeakBlood Loss, SurgicalConversion to Open SurgeryFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRectal cancerRobotic surgerySystematic reviewTaTME

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.