SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Robotic versus laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, and mortality.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials with GRADE certainty rating.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Is robotic colorectal surgery worth the cost? An umbrella review integrating clinical outcomes, learning curve, and economic evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Anastomotic reinforcement in rectal surgery: a position statement from an expert panel of colorectal surgeons.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Multicenter international experience with the Hugo™ RAS platform in colorectal surgery: reproducibility and real-world outcomes from the COLOROBOT IBERICA study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Intracorporeal Single-Stapled Anastomosis (RISS) is Associated with Lower Anastomotic Leakage Rates than the Double-Stapled Technique After Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Impact of an ERAS-Based Surgical Care Bundle Implementation for Preventing Anastomotic Leakage in Minimally Invasive Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Functional, oncologic and clinical outcomes of robotic rectal resection using the Hugo™ RAS system versus laparoscopic surgery: A comparative cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Observational
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Influence of computed tomography-based pelvimetric parameters and surgical approaches on surgical difficulty in mid‑low rectal cancer.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025Article
- Article
- Poor nutritional status based on controlling nutritional status score and nutritional risk index may be related to the occurrence of complications after laparoscopic treatment in patients with gastrointestinal tumors aged no more than 60 years.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Robotic vs. 3D laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study of short-term outcomes and functional recovery.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCompare the efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer treatment, addressing the ongoing debate within the medical community regarding the optimal surgical approach.
backgroundTraditionally, surgery has been the cornerstone of rectal cancer treatment, aimed at tumor removal and intestinal function preservation. Recent advancements have introduced laparoscopic and robotic surgeries as minimally invasive alternatives to conventional methods. However, it faces limitations in instrument mobility and dexterity. Robotic approach, on the other hand, enhances these aspects by providing surgeons with advanced precision, a three-dimensional high-definition view, and superior tissue manipulation capabilities, making it an increasingly preferred option for rectal cancer treatment.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA-2020 guidelines was carried out. This study analyzed phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic approach in treating rectal cancer. Only studies meeting specific criteria were included, with congress abstracts, narrative reviews, case reports, and letters to the editor excluded.
resultsWe identified 350 studies, 8 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 2525 patients from diverse geographical locations. The main outcomes analyzed were regional recurrence, anastomotic leak, postoperative complications, and mortality. The findings indicated no significant differences between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries in terms of Grade III Clavien-Dindo complications, mortality, and anastomotic leakage. The diverse geographical origin of the studies suggests the applicability of the results across different health care settings, although system-specific considerations are essential.
conclusionRobotic approach does not show significant advantages over laparoscopic approach in terms of major complications and mortality rates in rectal cancer treatment, indicating that both surgical approaches are viable options with their specific benefits and limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39576363What 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.