Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40172685›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2025

Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Andrea Morini, Maurizio Zizzo, Magda Zanelli, Francesca Sanguedolce, Andrea Palicelli, Candida Bonelli, Lucia Mangone, Massimiliano Fabozzi

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

8 authors.

Andrea MoriniSurgical Oncology Unit, Azienda USL - IRCCS Di Reggio Emilia, Viale Risorgimento 80, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy. andrea.morini@ausl.re.it.
Maurizio ZizzoSurgical Oncology Unit, Azienda USL - IRCCS Di Reggio Emilia, Viale Risorgimento 80, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy. maurizio.zizzo@ausl.re.it.
Magda ZanelliPathology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS Di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Francesca SanguedolcePathology Unit, Policlinico Riuniti, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Andrea PalicelliPathology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS Di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Candida BonelliOncology Department, Azienda USL-IRCCS Di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Lucia MangoneEpidemiology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS Di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Massimiliano FabozziSurgical Oncology Unit, Azienda USL - IRCCS Di Reggio Emilia, Viale Risorgimento 80, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTransverse colon cancer, which accounts for approximately 10% of all colon cancers, has a significant gap in the available scientific literature regarding the optimal minimally invasive surgical approach. This meta-analysis aims to compare the robotic and laparoscopic approaches for the surgical management of transverse colon cancer.

methodsOur systematic review made use of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, in addition to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Articles of interest turned out from a search with PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL), Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index), and Embase databases. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for comparative population studies concerning patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer). The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (Version 2) (RoB 2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (Version 2) ROBINS-I. We evaluated two groups of outcomes: intraoperative and postoperative. RevMan (Computer program) Version 5.4.1 was used to perform the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the included studies in the meta-analysis was assessed by using the I

resultsThe 4 included comparative studies (373 patients: 116 robotic colectomy versus 257 laparoscopic colectomy) had a time frame of approximately 26 years (2005-2021) and an observational nature. Meta-analysis showed a longer operative time (MD: 62.47, 95% CI: 18.17, 106.76, I

conclusionsOur meta-analysis revealed that the robotic approach to transverse colon cancer appears to be a safe and feasible option, with results comparable to those of laparoscopic surgery, with longer operating times but a shorter hospital stay. Further high-quality methodological studies are needed to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term outcomes, healthcare costs, and the learning curve between the robotic and laparoscopic surgical approaches.

Indexed as

ColectomyColonic NeoplasmsColon, TransverseLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresFeasibility StudiesHumansPostoperative ComplicationsPublication BiasTreatment OutcomeExtendend colectomyLaparoscopic surgeryRobotic surgerySegmental colectomyTransverse colon cancer

Identifiers

PMID40172685
PMCPMC11965196

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.