ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Development and validation of a predictive model for anastomotic complications with mid-low rectal cancer based on propensity score matching analysis-Does robotic surgery have an advantage?
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic surgery, with its advanced mechanical arm and enhanced visual capabilities, has been regarded as a development of laparoscopic surgery. The two surgical methods complement each other and seem to achieve similar oncological results. This study, based on a large sample, develops and validates a predictive model for anastomotic complications followed by propensity-matched analysis to compare the oncological outcomes and perioperative anastomotic complications of laparoscopic and robotic surgery. All patients who underwent radical resection have been collected prospectively. After censoring for inclusion criteria, we performed a propensity-matching analysis. We conducted a thorough compilation of postoperative examination data, and Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival curves were generated to assess the oncological outcomes while the proportion of anastomotic complications was evaluated accurately. Meanwhile, the final model was built using logistic regression with a 7:3 ratio. The training dataset was subjected to both univariate and multivariate analyses to refine the predictive model. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC), calibration plots, and Decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to measure the model's clinical utility. Eventually, patients matched 1:1 by propensity score were divided into the robotic and laparoscopic groups, with 210 cases included in each group. Although the operative time was longer in robotic surgery (P = 0.011), the earlier time to first flatus passage without ileostomy (P = 0.040) and the earlier time to liquid diet without ileostomy (P = 0.030) were shorter with statistical difference. The oncological outcomes and occurrence of other complications were comparable between the two approaches. The model incorporated 7 factors including: BMI (OR = 0.27), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT, OR = 1.70), distance from anal verge (OR = 2.01), gender (OR = 0.65), size of tumor (OR = 1.71), diabetes (OR = 0.22), and operative time (OR = 0.19). The model exhibited strong discriminative ability in ROC with area under curve (AUC) values of 0.858 in the training set and 0.823 in the validation set. DCA and calibration plots revealed that the model possesses substantial clinical utility. For mid-low rectal cancer, robotic surgery emerges as a viable method, offering comparable short-term oncological results and better performance of perioperative anastomotic complications relative to laparoscopic surgery. Meanwhile, the model serves as a valuable tool for clinicians, enabling them to identify patients who are at risk for developing anastomotic complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40587038What 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.