Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40075413›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2025

Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted sugery for rectal cancer after neo-adjuvant therapy: a large volume single center experience.

Heyuan Zhu, Jingyu Zou, Hongfeng Pan, Ying Huang, Pan Chi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors.

Heyuan ZhuUnion Medical College, Fujian Medical University, No. 1 Xuefu North Road, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Jingyu ZouUnion Medical College, Fujian Medical University, No. 1 Xuefu North Road, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Hongfeng PanUnion Medical College, Fujian Medical University, No. 1 Xuefu North Road, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Ying HuangDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, 29 Xin-Quan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian, People's Republic of China. hy9033sy@sina.com.
Pan ChiDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University, 29 Xin-Quan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, Fujian, People's Republic of China.

Funding

Fujian Provincial Health Technology Project 2021GGA013, 2020CXA025Joint Funds for the innovation of science and Technology, Fujian province 2020Y9071Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province 2023J01099
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery after receiving neo-adjuvant therapy. There is a lack of clarity on this topic, necessitating a comprehensive comparison.

methodBetween January 2017 and December 2021, consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection at a major public medical center were enrolled. All participants received neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) before surgery. The primary objective of this study was to assess the sphincter preservation rate and the rate of conversion to open surgery, using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Secondary endpoints included 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), 5-year overall survival (OS), short-term postoperative complications, long-term oncological prognosis, and the occurrence of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS).

resultA total of 575 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer participated in the cohort study, with 183 individuals undergoing robotic surgery and 392 undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Patients in the robotic group tended to be younger and had higher ypT, cT, and cN stages, lower tumor locations, and higher rates of extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) and circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity. PSM resulted in 183 patients in the robotic group and 187 in the laparoscopic group. We found a higher sphincter preservation rate in robotic group compared with laparoscopic group (92.9% vs. 86.1%, P = 0.033), with no significant difference in conversion to open surgery(P > 0.05). The robotic group had a higher incidence of postoperative chylous ascites (4.9% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.029) and potentially lower sepsis occurrence (0% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.085). No significant differences were observed in long-term oncological prognosis or 5-year survival rates (P > 0.05). The median survival time for each group was 34 months. Subgroup analysis of 76 rectal cancer patients who underwent intersphincteric resection (ISR) surgery indicated that those who selected robotic surgery had higher cN and cT stages. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed in short-term and long-term clinical outcomes, LARS, OS time, and DFS time between the two surgical modalities. The primary outcomes of interest, specifically the rate of sphincter preservation and the rate of conversion to open laparotomy, showed no significant differences.

conclusionRobotic surgery for rectal cancer, following preoperative nCRT, demonstrates comparable technical safety and oncological outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Further comprehensive studies are needed to to confirm the potential advantages of robotic surgical interventions.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyNeoadjuvant TherapyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic surgeryLong-term prognosisLow anterior resection syndromeNeo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapyPropensity-score matching analysisRectal cancerRobotic surgeryShort-term prognosis

Identifiers

PMID40075413
PMCPMC11899483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.