SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2025
Left colectomy for diverticular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing robotic and laparoscopic resections.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 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.
- Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic resection for diverticular disease: a comparative study from a tertiary referral center.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Analyzing the switch from laparoscopic to robotic surgery for diverticular disease: a comparative cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAround 50% of people aged 60 years and above are affected by diverticular disease, and 25% of these individuals will require surgical intervention. Our objective is to compare the results of left colonic resection for sigmoid diverticular disease using both robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Our primary aim is to conduct a meta-analysis while investigating the rates of conversion to open surgery, stoma and complications between the two methods. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan Version 5.4 software. The random-effect model was employed to pool dichotomous outcomes and estimate risk and odds ratios (OR).
resultsEight studies were thought to fulfil the eligibility criteria: 1892 patients (49.2%) had robotic surgery, and 1952 patients (50.84%) underwent a laparoscopic approach. There were fewer conversions to open surgery in the robotic group when compared to the laparoscopic group (P < 0.00001), a lower rate of postoperative ileus (P = 0.005), shorter length of stay (mean difference (MD) 0.18 P = 0.003) and fewer morbidities (P = 0.002). There were similar rates of stoma formation (4.7%, P = 1.00), anastomotic leak (2.6%, P = 0.85) and mortality (0.3% vs 0.2%, P = 0.59). The operative time was shorter in the robotic approach, although the difference was not significant (P = 0.47).
conclusionRobotic surgery is feasible for diverticular disease compared to laparoscopic left colectomy. Our study observed a reduction in the conversion to open rate, reduced morbidity, and less ileus while demonstrating similar rates of stoma formation, anastomotic leak, and mortality. However, more high-quality research needs to be conducted to investigate this further. The study is registered in Prospero (reg # CRD42023440509).
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.