ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Enhanced recovery and reduced conversion rates in robotic rectal cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Towards safer colorectal surgery worldwide: Outcomes and benchmarks from the ESCP CORREA 2022 audit.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted rectal resection with conventional laparoscopic and open approaches, focusing on complication rates, conversion rates, length of hospital stay, and oncologic outcomes.
methodsA retrospective single-center cohort study included 106 patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer (UICC stages I-III) who underwent rectal resection from January 2013 to December 2023. Patients were assigned to open surgery (n = 23), conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 55), or robotic-assisted surgery (n = 28).
resultsRobotic surgery demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates compared to minimal-invasive surgeries (p = 0.047) and shorter hospital stays (11.5 ± 8 days) compared to open (17.91 ± 12 days) and laparoscopic (17.2 ± 14 days) surgeries (p = 0.001). The quality of the specimen was significantly better (Score 1) in robotic (85.71%) and open (89.09%) cases compared to laparoscopic approaches (47.83%) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic surgery was identified as a risk factor for worse specimen quality (p < 0.001). Older patients (> 63 years) had a higher risk for conversion in univariate analysis (p = 0.049). Morbidity was comparable between the groups (p = 0.131), and the anastomotic leakage rate did not differ significantly (laparoscopic: 18.18%, open: 13.04%, robotic: 17.86%). Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed no significant differences in overall survival probabilities among the groups.
conclusionRobotic-assisted rectal resection provides significant advantages in terms of lower conversion rates, better specimen quality, and shorter hospital stays while maintaining comparable complication rates and oncologic outcomes to conventional laparoscopic and open approaches. These findings support robotic surgery as a standard treatment option for rectal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39207562What 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.