ReviewCureus2025
A Review of the Current Trends and Future Perspectives of Robots in Colorectal Surgery: What Have We Got Ourselves Into?
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Latin American and Caribbean participation in robot-assisted surgery research: productivity, collaboration, and research themes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Surgical interventions in inflammatory bowel disease: Indications, techniques, outcomes, and future directions.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Safety and feasibility of solo surgery using a novel robotic platform: an IDEAL 2a development study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Observational
- Robotic Segmental Resection of the Splenic Flexure and Mid-Transverse Colon for Malignancy Treatment: A Systematic Review of Operative Techniques, Anastomotic Approaches, and Surgical and Oncological Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Validation of the ACS-NSQIP surgical risk calculator for patients with paraoesophageal hernias undergoing robotic repair.Surgical endoscopy · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic colorectal surgery represents a significant advancement in the management of complex colorectal conditions, offering enhanced precision, safety, and improved patient outcomes. It is widely utilised for colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticular disease, and rectal prolapse, with key benefits such as 3D visualisation, superior dexterity, and precise navigation in confined spaces. These advantages contribute to lower conversion rates to open surgery, faster recovery, reduced pain, and shorter hospital stays. This narrative review analysed recent peer-reviewed literature, focusing on technological advancements, clinical outcomes, and emerging challenges in robotic colorectal surgery. Findings highlight improved oncological precision, faster recovery, and fewer complications, driven by innovations like AI-guided decision-making and advanced robotic platforms. However, issues such as prolonged operative times, high costs, and steep learning curves remain. Future efforts should prioritise integrating AI, enhancing surgeon training, and addressing cost barriers to maximise the potential of robotic colorectal surgery in improving patient care.
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.