SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Comparing the perioperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes between robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies with a subgroup analysis for overweight patients.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Single-stapling versus double-stapling technique for rectal anastomosis-meta-analysis.BJS open · 2026Pooled it
- Multi-database bibliometric analysis and cross-database comparison of NOSES research in colorectal cancer: integrated evidence from WoSCC and PubMed.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- The learning curve of robotic esophagectomy: a systematic review with a proposed training and competency assessment framework.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Gender-Specific Cancer-Related Survival Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026Observational
- Repositioning transanal total mesorectal excision in the robotic era.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic surgery for rectal cancer in 2026: a hierarchical appraisal of the evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Transanal versus robotic total mesorectal excision for mid- and low-rectal cancer: A single-center comparative cohort of 109 patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- The diet-microbiota-inflammation axis and colorectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- ROBO-SURG: perceived robotic outcomes and behavior in operative surgery - a global cross-sectional web survey of training, practice patterns, and perceived clinical outcomes : the protocol.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard for rectal cancer surgery. Robotic (RoTME) and transanal (TaTME) approaches have gained popularity, but their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain and previous meta-analysis include many retrospective studies which are prone to biases. This meta-analysis aims to bridge this gap. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for prospective studies comparing RoTME and TaTME. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. Sensitivity analysis included a "leave-one-out" approach. Subgroup analysis was performed for overweight patients. Five non-randomized prospective studies (n = 1941) were included. RoTME and TaTME had no significant differences regarding operative duration (MD: 27.29, 95% CI -56.18 to 110.76, P = 0.29, I
Indexed as
Identifiers
40483613What 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.