SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Comparative analysis of the safety and effectiveness of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal tumors through systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized controlled trial comparing robotic NOSES versus robotic TME for Mid-rectal cancer: short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Trial
- Article
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study and meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative and oncologic results of robotic NOSE versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal tumors. We plan to perform an extensive electronic search on PubMed, CNKI, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to find research articles published from the beginning of the databases until July 2024 that examine the comparison between robotic natural orifice specimen extraction and laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal cancer. Both English and Chinese literature will be included. Literature screening will strictly follow predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, specifically targeting randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The evaluation of quality will be conducted with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Review Manager 5.4.1 will be utilized to perform a meta-analysis of data gathered from the studies that are included. The ultimate evaluation included seven past cohort studies with a total of 1117 participants (545 who had robotic NOSE and 572 who had laparoscopic surgery). Patients who had robotic NOSE experienced notable enhancements in LOHS, time to first flatus, time to start the liquid diet, EBL, and postoperative ileus when compared to patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. There were no notable discrepancies noted in terms of surgical duration, total complications, lymph node collection, and anastomotic leakage between the two methods. In conclusion, the use of robotic technology for extracting specimens through natural body openings in colorectal surgery is considered to be safe and achievable. It offers notable advantages over laparoscopic surgery, including reduced hospital stay, earlier time to first flatus and liquid intake, decreased EBL, and lower incidence of postoperative ileus.
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.