ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2025
Expanding the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery: the feasibility of robotic natural orifice transluminal extraction colectomy and robotic no-incision colectomy in colorectal practice.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergency robotic-assisted repair in an elderly patient with strangulated hernia and active influenza A infection: A case report.World journal of virology · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted Resection of a Giant Mesenteric Lymphangioma in a 36-Year-Old Woman: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Review
- Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Emergency General Surgery: A Prospective, Single-Center, Case Series.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMinimally invasive surgery offers reduced trauma, accelerated recovery, and shorter hospital stays. Robotic technology further enhances laparoscopic precision, particularly in colorectal procedures. This study investigated the safety and effectiveness of robotic natural orifice transluminal extraction colectomy (R-NOTEC) and robotic no-incision colectomy (R-NIC), comparing these techniques to the conventional robotic colectomy.
methodsOutcomes of patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal resection-either conventional robotic colectomy or R-NOTEC/R-NIC-using a single docking technique at a tertiary hospital over 3 years were analyzed. All patients were managed according to established Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols.
resultsIn total, 100 patients were included, with 25 receiving R-NOTEC or R-NIC. The median age was 65 years (range, 30-82 years), and the median body mass index was 31.0 kg/m2 (range, 20.1-43.0 kg/m2). The median length of stay was significantly shorter in the R-NOTEC/R-NIC group than in the conventional robotic group (2.0 days vs. 3.4 days, P=0.021). Other outcomes, such as circumferential resection margin status, lymph node yield, and mortality, were similar between groups. The R-NOTEC/R-NIC group exhibited a slightly lower complication rate, as well as less opioid use. No conversions to open surgery occurred in either group.
conclusionsR-NOTEC/R-NIC offer significant promise in colorectal surgery by minimizing trauma, expediting recovery, and maintaining oncologic safety. Nevertheless, these procedures require specialized surgical expertise and careful patient selection. Further research should focus on long-term outcomes and standardization of these techniques. .
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.