ArticleChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Transition phase to robot-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a comparative consecutive cohort study].
Article in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer is increasingly being treated with a minimally invasive approach and, more recently, also robot-assisted surgery.
methodsThis controlled cohort study of colorectal cancer surgery compares the results during the transition period from conventional laparoscopy (2015-2017) to robot-assisted surgery (2018-2022). The parameters examined included postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, the TNM classification, the number of resected lymph nodes, and the Textbook Oncologic Outcome (TOO).
resultsIn the robotic group there were more patients with ASA classification grades 3-4 (p = 0.016), in the laparoscopic group there were more left-sided and rectal tumors and in the robotic group there were more tumors of the transverse colon and right-sided colon (p < 0.001). In the laparoscopic group more patients required a reoperation (R 5% vs. L 19%; p = 0.007), there were more complications in general (R 22% vs. L 40%) and more severe complications in particular (CDC grade ≥ III, R 8% vs. L 25%; p = 0.023). Anastomotic leaks occurred more often in the laparoscopic group (R 5% vs. L 17%, p = 0.032). No significant differences were found in either the 2‑year survival (OS) or recurrence-free survival (RFS, OS: R 97% vs. L 98%, p = 0.455. RFS: R 98% vs. L 92%, p = 0.232). In the laparoscopy group, significantly more tumor recurrences occurred over the course of 4 years (R 1% vs. L 14%; p = 0.009). There were more patients with TOO in the robot-assisted (89.53%) than in the laparoscopic groups (53.79%).
conclusionThe transition phase from laparoscopy to robotics was safe: complications were reduced and TOOs increased, lymph node resection and 2‑year survival were comparable. Robotic-assisted oncological surgery can be offered in a high-quality manner at a central hospital and makes an important contribution to the quality of patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40471312What 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.