SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of oncological, perioperative, and survival-related outcomes.
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 9 papers, 3 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis with comparison against published systematic reviews.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled 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
- Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Impacts of neoadjuvant therapy on subsequent surgical difficulty, safety, and outcomes in locally advanced rectal cancer: a narrative review.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Review
- Comparison of Perioperative, Oncologic, and Functional Outcomes Following Robotic and Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Robotic surgery for rectal cancer in 2026: a hierarchical appraisal of the evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- A visual exploration of the evolutionary trajectory in robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery during institutional transition: a 10-year sequential cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A major cause of cancer death, colorectal cancer is becoming more common in younger people. The comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) as surgical interventions for mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) remains uncertain. To systematically evaluate oncological, perioperative, and survival outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer following nCRT. A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis included 20 non-randomized studies (13,212 patients) from Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase up to July 2025. Outcomes encompassed pathological completeness (circumferential resection margin, TME quality), perioperative metrics (operative duration, conversion rates), complications, and survival (5-year OS/DFS). Risk of bias was assessed via ROBINS-I; statistical synthesis utilized RevMan5.4 and hazard ratios derived from Kaplan-Meier curves. This meta-analysis of 20 non-randomized studies (13,212 patients) found no significant differences in 5-year overall survival (HR: 1.07, 95% CI 0.20-5.66, p = 0.94, I
Indexed as
Identifiers
40914745What 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.