ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Short-term clinical outcomes and cost analysis of intracorporeal anastomosis with laparoscopic and robotic staplers during robot-assisted right colon resection: a single-center retrospective study.
Article 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early implementation and feasibility of Hugo RAS system-assisted right colectomy for right-sided colon cancer: an exploratory propensity score-matched comparison with the da Vinci surgical system.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer using the Hugo™ RAS system: an observational study with the initial 118 cases and a literature review.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Economic transition during robotic colorectal surgery implementation: reduced device costs and improved gross profit per hospital day.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Splenic flexure mobilization using a fusion surgery technique in robotic left hemicolectomy for colon cancer: a video vignette.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
- Experience with hinotoriJournal of the anus, rectum and colon · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracorporeal anastomosis has become a routine component of robot-assisted right colectomy, but comparative data between the robotic stapler (RS) and the laparoscopic stapler (LS) remain scarce. This study analyzed procedural efficiency and short-term clinical outcomes of these two techniques, with particular attention to stapler utilization and economic considerations. A retrospective review was performed for 140 consecutive patients who underwent robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal bowel reconstruction between Jan 2023 and Mar 2025 at our center. Among these, RS was used in 62 operations, while LS was applied in 78 procedures performed with assistance at the bedside. Of the 140 cases, functional end-to-end anastomosis was employed in 91, Delta in 33, and Overlap in 16, with similar distributions between the RS and LS groups. Median operative duration was shorter in the LS cohort (182 min) compared with the RS group (201.5 min, p = 0.033). Other perioperative parameters-including blood loss, complication profile, hospital recovery time, and pathology-did not differ meaningfully between the two techniques. However, the LS approach required fewer stapler firings (4 vs. > 5, p < 0.001), while the time required to complete the anastomosis was nearly identical (14 min in both groups, p = 0.44). Both stapling systems provided safe and reliable outcomes in robotic right colectomy. The LS strategy reduced the number of stapler applications without prolonging anastomosis, suggesting a potential for improved operative efficiency. These results support the need for larger, prospective evaluations to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41077572What 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.