ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Increasing robotic rectal cancer surgery may not increase total hospital costs.
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.
- Economic, resource-use, and adoption signals in the robotic colorectal surgery literature: a bibliometric and visualization study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Establishing a sustainable and high-utilization robot-assisted surgery platform in a regional cancer center: insights from a multidisciplinary, break-even-guided operational strategy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Economic transition during robotic colorectal surgery implementation: reduced device costs and improved gross profit per hospital day.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic surgery for rectal cancer in 2026: a hierarchical appraisal of the evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- ROBO-SURG: perceived robotic outcomes and behavior in operative surgery - a global cross-sectional web survey of training, practice patterns, and perceived clinical outcomes : the protocol.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe robotic approach provides fewer conversions and complications as well as better post-operative functionality in rectal surgery but increased costs in randomized trials has limited its use. The aim of this study was to compare the total hospital costs of rectal cancer surgery following the introduction of a second robotic platform.
methodsConsecutive patients who underwent open, laparoscopic or robotic rectal cancer resection between March 2020 and February 2023 were retrospectively collected from patient registry. Time periods represented 18 months before and 18 months after the introduction of second robotic system. Outcomes and 90-day hospital costs of 3/2020-8/2021 (Group1) and 9/2021-2/2023 (Group2) were compared.
resultsTotal cohort included 227 patients, 105 in Group1 and 122 in Group2. No significant differences were observed in ASA-class, Tumor-location, -stage or co-morbidity. Operative blood loss and operative time were similar. Increased robotic access changed the allocation of surgical modalities (p < 0.001) and increased the share of patients operated mini-invasively (83% vs. 93%, p = 0.038), also major complications decreased (48% vs. 37%, p = 0.041). Mean operative costs were higher in Group2 (13 350 vs. 12 819 €) but mean 90-d total hospital costs were lower (23 777 vs. 24 875 €, non-significant).
conclusionIncreased robotic access changed the allocation of surgical modalities in rectal cancer surgery. Although, new robotic platform increased direct operative costs, total 90-d hospital costs did not rise due to compensatory decreases in other segments of the treatment. Therefore, increasing robotic surgery may not increase total hospital costs of rectal cancer surgery.
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.