SynthesisActa cirurgica brasileira2024
Robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy in colon cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for patients ≥ 65 years of age: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Current Evidence in Robotic Colorectal Surgery.Cancers · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare robotic versus laparoscopic colectomies in colon cancer patients in general complications.
methodsNine databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating patients with colon cancer, submitted to robotic surgery (RS) compared to a laparoscopic (LC) approach. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 tool, and certainty of the evidence was evaluated by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Data synthesis was performed using the software R. The meta-analysis of the included studies was carried out using the fixed-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). Heterogeneity was measured using I2 analysis.
resultsA total of four studies were used with 293 patients. Three studies were used in this comparative LC vs. RS when evaluating infection rates on surgical wound sites. The odds ratio (OR) appeared to be slightly favorable to LC (OR = 3.05; 95% confidence interval-95%CI 0.78-11.96). In the hospitalization rates analysis, two randomized controlled trials were used, and the mean differences slightly favored the RS (MD = -0.54; 95%CI -2.28-1.19). GRADE evaluation detected a serious risk of bias due to RCT format and RoB-2 concurred.
conclusionBoth types of procedures seem to have their own benefits, risks, and limitations. They seem close to equal in terms of postsurgical infection and hospitalization.
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.