ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of robotic assisted and laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer with or without left colic artery preservation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection in younger rectal cancer cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis with narrative functional assessment.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Quantitative analysis of colon-lengthening techniques in laparoscopic low rectal cancer surgery with left colic artery preservation: a fresh cadaveric model study.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Impact of powered circular stapling devices on anastomotic leakage rates in colorectal surgery.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Efficacy and prognosis evaluation of left colic artery preservation in laparoscopic NOSES for rectal cancer: retrospective survival analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Left colic artery-preserving radical rectal cancer surgery: a literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The preservation of the left colic artery (LCA) during rectal cancer resection remains a topic of controversy, and there is a notable absence of robust evidence regarding the outcomes associated with LCA preservation. And the advantages of robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) surgery in rectal resection remain uncertain. The objective of this study was to assess the influence of LCA preservation surgery and RAL surgery on intraoperative and postoperative complications of rectal cancer resection. Patients who underwent laparoscopic (LSC) or RAL with or without LCA preservation resection for rectal cancer between April 2020 and May 2023 were retrospectively assessed. The patients were categorized into two groups: low ligation (LL) which with preservation of LCA and high ligation (HL) which without preservation of LCA. A one-to-one propensity score-matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was operative findings, operative morbidity, and postoperative genitourinary function. A total of 612 patients were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 139 patients in each group. The blood loss of the LL group was significantly less than that of the HL group (54.42 ± 12.99 mL vs. 65.71 ± 7.37 mL, p<0.001). The urinary catheter withdrawal time in the LL group was significantly shorter than that in the HL group (4.87 ± 2.04 d vs. 6.06 ± 2.43d, p<0.001). Anastomotic leakage in the LL group was significantly lower than that in HL group (1.44% vs. 7.91%, p = 0.011). The rate of urinary dysfunction and sexual dysfunction in LL group is both significantly lower than HL group. Blood loss and number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs) of both RAL subgroups in LL and HL groups were significantly more than that in LSC subgroups. The anastomotic leakage in the RAL subgroup of HL group was significantly lower than that in LSC subgroup (0% vs. 14.89%, p = 0.018). LCA preservation surgery for rectal cancer may help reduce the blood loss, urinary catheter withdrawal time, the rate of anastomotic leakage and ileus, and postoperative genitourinary function outcomes. RAL can reduce the probability of blood loss and improve harvest LNs in patients with rectal cancer.
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.