Observational studyTechniques in coloproctology2024
Open versus robotic-assisted techniques for multivisceral pelvic resections of locally advanced or recurrent colorectal and anal cancers: short-term outcomes from a single centre.
Observational study in Techniques in coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Treatment outcomes of robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery with multivisceral resection of adjacent organs.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic exenterations are now established as a standard of care for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer. Traditionally, these radical and complex operations have been performed via an open approach, but with the increasing expertise in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), there is scope to perform such cases robotically. This study compares outcomes from open and RAS pelvic exenterations.
methodsThis retrospective observational study includes all pelvic exenterations for locally advanced or recurrent colorectal cancers performed in a single centre between September 2018 and September 2023. Cases were grouped into open or RAS surgery and classified in terms of operative extent and complexity. The primary outcome was resection margin status. Secondary outcomes were postoperative morbidity, length of stay and blood loss.
resultsThirty-three patients were included. Nineteen (57.6%) cases utilised an open technique, and 14 (42.4%) used RAS. Patient characteristics and operative complexity were equivalent between groups. R0 rate (63.1% vs 71.4%, p = 0.719), median haemoglobin drop (19 (11-30) g/L vs 13 (5-26) g/L, p = 0.208) and postoperative morbidity (18/19 (94.7%) vs 9/14 (64.3%), p = 0.062) were equivalent. Length of stay (16.0 days (8-25) vs 9.5 days (6-16), p = 0.047) was shorter in the RAS group.
conclusionsShort-term surgical and histopathological outcomes are equivalent in this small cohort of patients. This study suggests that RAS may be a safe and effective method for performing pelvic exenterations for colorectal malignancies. Larger-scale and robustly designed prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings and report on long-term oncological outcomes.
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.