ReviewCureus2025
Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery During the Early Learning Curve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Is robotic colorectal surgery worth the cost? An umbrella review integrating clinical outcomes, learning curve, and economic evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative learning curves of robotic and laparoscopic skills in a simulated task-based model.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- Open, Laparoscopic, and robotic approaches in colorectal surgery: a comprehensive review with focus on colorectal cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgery is a cornerstone for colorectal cancer treatment. Though laparoscopy surgery is a well-established technique for colorectal patients and has shown reduced hospital stay and postoperative morbidities, it has inherent limitations due to straight instruments and limited views in areas such as the pelvis. Nevertheless, recently, the robotic approach has aimed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic techniques and offers EndoWrist technology with 3D, high definition, and stable views for precise dissection. This review aims to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for colorectal cancer during the initial adoption phase of robotic techniques. A comprehensive literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines, resulting in the inclusion of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 17 observational studies. Eligibility criteria focused on adult patients undergoing elective resection for colorectal neoplasia. A total of 23 articles were analyzed for various outcomes. Robotic surgery demonstrated a shorter postoperative hospital stay compared to laparoscopic surgery (MD = -0.132; p = 0.031) and significantly lower conversion to open surgery (OR = 1.480; 95% CI: 0.364-0.635; p = 0.000). No significant difference was observed in 30-day mortality, early postoperative complications, readmission, and reoperation rates between the two groups. Emerging evidence suggests that, during the early adoption phase, robotic surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with reduced conversion rates to open surgery and shorter postoperative hospital stays compared to laparoscopic surgery. However, comprehensive evaluation through future studies is required to elucidate long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and patient-reported measures related to robotic colorectal surgery.
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.