ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2026
Comparison of laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy: insights from a single centre.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRight hemicolectomy has evolved from open to minimally invasive approaches. Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) is widely adopted, yet challenges persist, particularly in complex dissections. Robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) offers enhanced precision and ergonomics but remains under scrutiny for its comparative advantages. This study critically evaluates the perioperative outcomes of LRH vs RRH within a single-centre framework.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis was carried out at a single tertiary institution, reviewing all RRH cases from January 2021 to December 2024 and comparing them with the most recent LRH cases. Inclusion criteria encompassed adults undergoing elective right hemicolectomy for confirmed malignancy; patients with recurrent disease or emergency indications were excluded. Demographics, tumour characteristics, operative details and short-term outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical tests.
resultsThe baseline demographics were comparable between the groups. Transverse colon tumours were more frequent in the RRH group (
conclusionRRH offers measurable benefits in recovery and haemostasis as compared with LRH. It offers equivalent short-term oncological outcomes without prolonging the operative time. Our findings suggest RRH may be preferable for anatomically complex cases. Larger, prospective studies with a long-term follow-up period are therefore indicated.
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.