Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39759987›Full record

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.

Hiroki Hamamoto, Masato Ota, Takafumi Shima, Toru Kuramoto, Kazuya Kitada, Kohei Taniguchi, Mitsuhiro Asakuma, Yasuhiro Oura, Yuri Ito, Sang-Woong Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Essential Updates 2024-2026: Advances in Colorectal Cancer Surgery.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hiroki HamamotoDepartment of General and Gastroenterological Surgery Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University Takatsuki Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2294-4673
Masato OtaDepartment of General and Gastroenterological Surgery Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University Takatsuki Japan.
Takafumi ShimaDepartment of General and Gastroenterological Surgery Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University Takatsuki Japan.
Toru KuramotoDepartment of General and Gastroenterological Surgery Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University Takatsuki Japan.
Kazuya KitadaDepartment of General and Gastroenterological Surgery Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University Takatsuki Japan.
Kohei TaniguchiDepartment of General and Gastroenterological Surgery Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University Takatsuki Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0648-1370
Mitsuhiro AsakumaDepartment of General and Gastroenterological Surgery Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University Takatsuki Japan.
Yasuhiro OuraDepartment of General Surgery Chibune Hospital Osaka Japan.
Yuri ItoDepartment of Medical Statistics Research and Development Center Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University Takatsuki Japan.
Sang-Woong LeeDepartment of General and Gastroenterological Surgery Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University Takatsuki Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2540-0655

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

a real‐world cohort studyJapanese inpatient databaseperioperative costspropensity score matchingrobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID39759987
PMCPMC11693608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.