ArticleFukushima journal of medical science2025
Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Lower Rectal Cancer.
Article in Fukushima journal of medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRectal cancer is among the main causes of cancer-related mortalities worldwide, necessitating more effective treatment strategies. It is considered that lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) for rectal cancer patients can contribute to local tumor control and that robotic LPND (Rob-LPND) may be more suitable for LPND, due to technical advantages of precise manipulation in a narrow pelvic space.
methodsIn this retrospective study, we evaluated the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-LPND (Lap-LPND) versus Rob-LPND in patients undergoing radical surgery for rectal cancer. Operative time, blood loss, urethral catheter reinsertion, duration of pelvic drainage tube placement, drainage volume, and postoperative hospital stay were compared between Lap-LPND and Rob-LPND.
resultsOur findings revealed that Rob-LPND was associated with longer total operation time, but there was no significant difference in operation time between the two LPND techniques. Urinary catheter re-insertion rates were lower in Rob-LPND; also, significant reductions in drainage tube duration, total drainage volume, and postoperative hospital stay were observed.
conclusionRob-LPND may reduce postoperative total drainage volume and shorten postoperative hospital stays. These improvement in short-term outcomes suggest potential clinical advantages of Rob-LPND.
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.