SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applicability and results of the versius surgical robotic system in colorectal surgery: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Target trial on the outcomes of laparoscopic compared to robotic-assisted proctectomy in stage II-III rectal cancer.Updates in surgery · 2026Trial
- Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- On the edge: pathology specimen quality in robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy, a propensity score-matched study.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2026Article
- Comparing the Oncologic and Surgical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Robotic surgery for rectal cancer in 2026: a hierarchical appraisal of the evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Treatment in 2026: An Updated Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Peripheral Retinal Visualization during Vitrectomy without Scleral Depression: A First-In-Human Comparative Study.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Early C-reactive protein as a predictive biomarker for postoperative complications following robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- A visual exploration of the evolutionary trajectory in robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery during institutional transition: a 10-year sequential cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Comparison of clinical outcomes and quality of life for robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with mid-low rectal cancer: a multicenter cohort study with inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Poor nutritional status based on controlling nutritional status score and nutritional risk index may be related to the occurrence of complications after laparoscopic treatment in patients with gastrointestinal tumors aged no more than 60 years.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Robotic vs. 3D laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study of short-term outcomes and functional recovery.Frontiers in surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRobotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability.
methodsAn extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer.
resultsThis meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03).
conclusionRARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39225912What 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.