Observational studyAnnals of surgery2026
A Prospective European Trial Comparing Laparotomy, Laparoscopy, Robotic-assisted, and Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Procedures in High-risk Patients With Rectal Cancer: The RESET Trial.
Observational study in Annals of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03574493 (Rectal Surgery Evaluation Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 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.
Rectal Surgery Evaluation Trial (RESET): Laparotomy vs Laparoscopy vs Robotic vs TaTME Rectal Surgery Matched Parallel Cohort Trial for High Surgical Risk Cancer Patients, With Mid- to Low Rectal Cancer
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transanal versus transabdominal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in minimally invasive surgery: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing the perioperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes between robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies with a subgroup analysis for overweight patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The perioperative results of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Repositioning transanal total mesorectal excision in the robotic era.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
- Robotic surgery for rectal cancer in 2026: a hierarchical appraisal of the evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Four clinical dilemmas in surgical decision making for low rectal cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- A landmark-based dynamic prediction model for anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery: integrating perioperative and postoperative trajectories.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes among laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision procedures in patients with rectal cancer: a propensity score-matching analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare total mesorectal excision (TME) techniques combined with sphincter-sparing procedures in high-risk patients (HRPs).
backgroundTME is the standard treatment for rectal cancer, but it can be challenging in HRPs. The available surgical approaches must be compared, especially in HRPs.
methodsProspective, observational, multicenter trial to compare laparotomy (OTME), laparoscopy (LTME), robotic-assisted surgery (RTME), and transanal surgery (TaTME) in HRPs. The composite primary outcome included circumferential radial margin (CRM) ≥1 mm, TME grade II-III, and absence of Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV complications. Three propensity score analyses were performed (LTME vs RTME, RTME vs TaTME, LTME vs TaTME).
resultsA total of 1078 HRPs (75% of men, median body mass index of 27 kg/m 2 , 50% of tumors in the lower third of the rectum) underwent surgery. The RTME and TaTME groups included patients with more advanced and lower tumors and coloanal anastomosis ( P <0.001). Operative time was longer for RTME surgery ( P <0.001). The conversion rate was similar for minimally invasive procedures (4.5%). The global R0 resection rate was 96% without difference among techniques. The primary outcome rates were 82.4%, 64.3%, 74.7%, and 80.3% for LTME, OTME, RTME, and TaTME, respectively. None achieved the expected success rate (85%), and propensity score analyses found no differences. Operative results were similar between high-volume and low-volume inclusion centers only for RTME.
conclusionsThe RESET trial yielded high-quality results despite focusing on HRPs. Minimally invasive procedures showed similar sphincter-sparing procedure outcomes, but LTME included patients with more favorable tumors. Oncologic and functional outcomes will be evaluated at 2 years (ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03574493).
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.