ReviewCureus2025
Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Segmental Resection vs. Extended Colectomy for Transverse Colon and Splenic Flexure Cancers: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Colorectal cancer is among the most common cancers in the world. Transverse colon cancer (TCC) and splenic flexure colon cancer (SFCC) are less common entities and present distinct clinical and surgical challenges. There is still no consensus on the surgical treatment of TCC and SFCC, and the optimal extent of resection and lymph node dissection remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate whether segmental resections, performed via robotic, laparoscopic, or open approaches, provide perioperative safety and long-term oncologic outcomes comparable to those of extended colectomies in patients with TCC or SFCC. This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant articles were sought in the databases PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science, using manual search queries, up to June 30, 2024. The seven included studies comprised 454 TCCs (78 robotic, 305 laparoscopic, 71 open) and 143 SFCC, which were directly comparable by approach (39 robotic, 104 laparoscopic). Two large datasets contributed a further 10,461 SFCC cases for extent-of-resection analysis (5,698 segmental; 4,763 extended resections). Extent was reported in 454 TCC cases, with 390 segmental and 64 extended resections. Mortality was <1% across all series with no technique-related differences. Minimally invasive robotic and laparoscopic approaches have comparable safety profiles, similar minor and major complication rates, equivalent R0 resection rates, and similar anastomotic leak rates. Robotic surgery offers slightly shorter hospital stays. Both techniques remain effective and feasible for colorectal cancer surgeries, with the robotic approach providing perioperative advantages in selected cases. Current evidence supports the safety and oncologic adequacy of both segmental and extended resections. Although robotic surgery may provide modest perioperative advantages, selection of the surgical approach should be individualized, with careful consideration of surgeon experience, cost implications, institutional capabilities, and tumor-specific anatomical factors to optimize patient outcomes.
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.