SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025
Robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer in Africa: an outcome comparison endorsed by the Nigerian society for colorectal disorders.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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.
- Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery Compared to Conventional Approaches: An Umbrella Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Bridging the gap: feasibility and future directions of robotic surgery in Sub-Saharan Africa-a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Orienting global surgery initiatives toward advancing minimally invasive surgery in Africa: a commentary based on continent-wide reviews.BMC 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) offer superior outcomes compared to open surgery. This study aimed to review the robotic and laparoscopic procedures for CRC performed in Africa, and compare the mean surgery duration, blood loss, hospital stay, rate of conversion, and prevalence of morbidity and mortality. This is the first study to compare the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for CRC in Africa.
methodsA systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, AJOL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched, identifying 2,259 publications, 33 of which were deemed eligible. Statistical analysis of outcomes was performed using "R". Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool.
resultsThe minimally invasive approach has been applied for CRC treatment in seven African countries: Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa. Laparoscopic surgeries accounted for 1,485 (95%) of cases, while 71 (5%) were robotic. Robotic procedures were associated with a longer surgery duration (256.41 min vs. 190.45 min, p < 0.0001), higher blood loss (226.48 mL vs. 141.55 mL, p < 0.0001), and a shorter hospital stay (4.52 days vs. 6.06 days, p = 0.85). Robotic procedures had a lower rate of conversion (3% vs. 8%, p = 0.29) and a lower prevalence of morbidity (19% vs. 26%, p = 0.26). Wound infection (24.49%) and ileus (57.14%) were the most common complications following laparoscopic and robotic procedures, respectively. There was no mortality from robotic surgeries; however, a prevalence of 0.39% (95% CI: 0;1.19) was recorded from laparoscopy.
conclusionsThis study establishes and compares the outcomes of advances in the treatment of CRC in the African setting, providing insights for policymakers, healthcare providers, and international organizations to make decisions regarding optimizing care for CRC patients in Africa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39658673What 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.