ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery2025
Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for patients with low rectal cancer: Short-term outcomes.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Does robotic intersphincteric resection better preserve anal function in low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Perioperative, Oncologic, and Functional Outcomes Following Robotic and Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (L-ISR) and robotic intersphincteric resection (R-ISR) for low rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective clinical analysis between August 2018 and August 2021 at the Department Of General Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School.
resultsA total of 28 patients were recruited in this research. Among these patients, there were 12 patients who underwent L-ISR and assigned to L-ISR group, and the remaining 16 patients underwent R-ISR and assigned to R-ISR group. The time to start oral fluids, time to start soft diet and time to first motion in R-ISR group were earlier than those in L-ISR group ( P < 0.05). The hospital stay in R-ISR group was shorter than that in L-ISR group ( P < 0.05). However, the operation time of R-ISR was longer compared to L-ISR group ( P < 0.05). Most important of all, the Kelly score in R-ISR group was 5.1 ± 0.9, which was higher than that in L-ISR group ( P = 0.004).
conclusionR-ISR is safe and feasible for patients with low rectal cancer. R-ISR is superior to L-ISR despite the operation time of R-ISR is longer. A randomised controlled trial will be performed to confirm the conclusion further.
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.