ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic approaches in short- and long-term outcomes of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: a Japanese multicenter study.
Article 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 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.
- Utility of establishing a unified regional database for enhancing academic output and specialist certification in Japan.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Observational
- Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Locally-Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Cohort Study Comparing Perioperative Morbidity and Short-Term Oncological Outcomes.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) is a challenging surgical technique with complex anatomy and narrow pelvic manipulation. The outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for LPND are still unclear.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 169 consecutive patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery with LPND between 2016 and 2023. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether LPND was performed by robotic surgery (R group, n = 40) or laparoscopic surgery (L group, n = 129). Clinicopathological feature and outcomes were compared between groups.
resultsFrequency of surgery with combined resection of adjacent structures (5.0% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.023), frequency of patients with distant metastasis (5.0% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.028), and estimated blood loss from bilateral LPND (74 mL vs. 132 mL, p = 0.013) were all lower in the R group than in the L group. Type of surgical approach did not correlate with postoperative complications. Median follow-up was 31.0 months (range, 1.0-69.0 months). No patients in the R group experienced local recurrence, compared to 4.6% in the L group. Multivariate analysis revealed laparoscopic surgery (odds ratio 3.687, 95% confidence interval 1.505-6.033; p = 0.004) as an independent predictor of poor relapse-free survival.
conclusionsRobotic surgery for LPND appears to have good prognostic value in some, but not all, oncologic cases. However, large prospective studies are desirable to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39729145What 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.