ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Clinical significance of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a retrospective propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circumferential resection margin status and longterm survival outcomes following robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgical resection for locally-advanced rectal cancer: a National Cancer Database (NCDB) study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Enhancing Surgical Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness With TaTME-Combined Robot-Assisted Surgery for Lower Rectal Cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeConventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for rectal cancer may sometimes be difficult. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) is expected to overcome these technical challenges of CLS and provide better short-term outcomes. However, previous randomized controlled trials indicated that the safety and feasibility of RALS compared to CLS remain controversial; therefore, we assessed the safety and feasibility of RALS for rectal cancer compared with CLS.
methodsThis study retrospectively reviewed 702 patients who had undergone anterior resection by CLS or RALS for rectal malignancies from January 2009 to December 2023. Among the patients, 313 and 75 were included in the CLS and RALS groups, respectively. Short- and midterm outcomes of the two groups were compared after performing propensity score matching analysis (PSM) to adjust for patient and tumor characteristics.
resultsA total of 140 and 70 patients in the CLS and RALS groups, respectively, were matched using PSM. The bleeding amount and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels on postoperative days 1 and 3 were significantly lower, the operation time was longer, and the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RALS group than in the CLS group. The Kaplan-Meier curves for cause-specific survival, relapse-free survival, and the cumulative incidence of local recurrence demonstrated no difference between the two groups.
conclusionRALS for rectal cancer provided superior outcomes to CLS in terms of the bleeding amount, postoperative CRP levels, and postoperative hospital stay. The midterm oncological outcomes in RALS were comparable to those in CLS.
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.