ArticleSurgery today2025
Comprehensive revenue comparison of pure robotic vs. hybrid robotic surgery for sigmoid colon and rectosigmoid cancer.
Article in Surgery today, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reinforcement sutures for preventing anastomotic leakage following double-stapling anastomosis in rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgery today · 2025Pooled it
- Economic transition during robotic colorectal surgery implementation: reduced device costs and improved gross profit per hospital day.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Factors influencing surgical difficulty in minimally invasive right hemicolectomy.Surgery today · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRobotic surgery (RS) in colorectal procedures is growing but remains costly. This study evaluated the cost-saving potential of hybrid robotic surgery (hybrid RS), which integrates laparoscopic devices, compared to conventional RS (pure RS).
methodsThis single-center retrospective study (2022-2024) compared pure RS and hybrid RS for sigmoid and rectosigmoid cancers. Propensity score matching minimizes bias. Total revenue is calculated as the total fee minus the total cost.
resultsAfter matching, 20 patients (10 per group) were analyzed. Hybrid RS improved total revenue ($3515.15 vs. $3229.33) by reducing the total cost ($3652.45 vs. $4061.33), mainly through lower material costs for staplers and ultrasonic devices. The operative time was shorter, and the safety and pathological outcomes were comparable.
conclusionsHybrid RS enhances cost efficiency by substituting expensive devices with affordable alternatives, supporting wider adoption of robotic surgery. Further validation using larger studies is necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40663176What 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.