Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40770525›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating functional recovery, complication risk, and oncologic quality.

Wajahat Mirza, Sundus Dadan, Hadi Mohammad Khan, Saeeda Yasmin

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 17 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wajahat MirzaShifa College of Medicine, Shifa Tameer-E-Millat University, Sector H-8/4, Islamabad, Pakistan. wajahatmirza.clinicalresearch@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-9811-7754
Sundus DadanShifa's Clinical Research Center, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Hadi Mohammad KhanDepartment of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Saeeda YasminDepartment of General Surgery, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) offers enhanced dexterity and visualization, potentially improving oncologic and perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS). However, its comparative benefits remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis, registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251036097), evaluated randomized controlled trials comparing RCS and LCS for colorectal cancer. The primary outcomes were time to bowel function, major complications, and total mesorectal excision (TME) completeness. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, lymph node yield, conversion to open surgery, hospital stay, anastomotic leakage, CRM involvement, and R0 resection. The meta-analysis incorporated seven randomized controlled trials involving 1731 patients: 869 underwent robotic-assisted surgery, while 862 underwent conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery significantly improved time to bowel function (MD - 0.62 days), reduced major complications (OR 0.70), and lowered conversion rates (OR 0.27) and CRM involvement (OR 0.62) compared to laparoscopy. Operative time was longer (MD + 22.7 min), while laparoscopic surgery yielded slightly higher lymph node counts (MD + 0.53). No significant differences were found in TME completeness, R0 resection, or anastomotic leaks. RCS has meaningful advantages in bowel recovery, surgical precision, and intraoperative outcomes, supporting its broader adoption in the surgical management of colorectal cancer.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionTreatment OutcomeColorectal cancerLaparoscopic surgeryMeta-analysisMinimally invasive surgeryOncologic outcomesPostoperative complicationsRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID40770525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.