ArticleAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2025
Comparison of short-term outcomes and perioperative costs in laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for rectal cancers: A real-world cohort study using Japanese nationwide inpatient database.
Article in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgeon workload in supervised robotic colorectal surgery: a surgical task load index study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Essential Updates 2024-2026: Advances in Colorectal Cancer Surgery.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Short-term outcomes and feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery for pT4 colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
- Comparison of short-term outcomes and perioperative costs in laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for rectal cancers: A real-world cohort study using Japanese nationwide inpatient database.Annals of gastroenterological 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Many studies have revealed the benefits of robotic surgery for rectal cancer; however, real-world data are insufficient. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes and perioperative costs of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for rectal cancer using a real-world database. Methods: The data of patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery for rectal cancer between January 2018 and January 2021 from a nationwide Japanese inpatient database provided by Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd. were analyzed. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to compare the in-hospital mortality, morbidity, readmission rate, reoperation rate, length of postoperative stay, and medical costs between the two groups. Results: We performed PSM analysis on 18 952 eligible patients. After PSM, 1396 patients in the laparoscopic group and 1396 in the robotic group were compared. The robotic group had a lower surgical site infection rate (2.9% vs. 1.5%, Conclusions: PSM analysis revealed that robotic surgery was associated with better outcomes than laparoscopic surgery in terms of surgical site infection and respiratory failure rates. The operative medical costs of robotic surgery were significantly higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. However, there was no significant difference in the total medical costs between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.
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.