ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Robotic vs. 3D laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective study of short-term outcomes and functional recovery.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sexual dysfunction outcomes and reporting disparities after multimodal treatment for rectal cancer: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Pooled it
- Precision Medicine and Artificial Intelligence in Next-Generation Cancer Surgery: A Comprehensive Analysis of Clinical Applications, Therapeutic Outcomes, and Implementation Strategies.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Pooled it
- Review
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
Background: Within the evolving landscape of precision medicine, robot-assisted surgery has emerged as a valuable tool in rectal cancer management. However, comprehensive evidence regarding its safety and clinical efficacy remains limited. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 235 patients with middle and low rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection from January 2020 to March 2023. Comprehensive perioperative data, including baseline characteristics, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes, were systematically collected and analyzed. The International Prostate Symptoms Score, International Erectile Function Index, and Female Sexual Function Index were utilized to assess postoperative organ function recovery. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of functional recovery and postoperative complications. All patients were prospectively followed for up to 3 years, with survival outcomes evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: Robotic surgery demonstrated significantly longer operative duration compared to 3D laparoscopic surgery (162.0 ± 44.0 vs. 149.0 ± 41.0 min, Conclusion: Robotic surgical systems demonstrate comparable safety and efficacy to traditional laparoscopy for rectal cancer resection, while offering distinct advantages including reduced intraoperative bleeding, improved pathological staging accuracy, and accelerated postoperative recovery of urinary and reproductive function. Both procedures exhibit similar short-term efficacy and safety profiles, with no significant difference in long-term survival rates.
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.