ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in older colorectal cancer patients: a comparison of clinical outcomes and inflammatory markers.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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.
- Pathogenic characteristics and factors associated with multidrug-resistant bacterial infections after perianal abscess surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have indicated that robotic surgery offers similar safety and efficacy to laparoscopic surgery in older colorectal cancer patients, while its potential advantages remain to be clarified.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed older colorectal cancer patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic surgery at Beijing Hospital. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability weighting (IPTW) to overcome selection bias. Primary outcomes focused on perioperative inflammatory markers (PNI, NLR, LMR, PLR, SII), while secondary endpoints included surgical, pathological, and clinical outcomes. The study evaluated robotic surgery's safety, efficacy, and potential advantages, offering insights into its clinical application for older patients.
resultsA total of 804 patients were initially enrolled in this study, and after screening, 539 cases were included in the final analysis. In the comparison of perioperative inflammatory marker changes, the robotic surgery group consistently demonstrated a lower inflammatory response. Additionally, the robotic surgery group had significantly lower postoperative drainage volumes at both 48 h (148 mL vs. 200 mL, p < 0.05) and 72 h (228 mL vs. 290 mL, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications or length of hospital stay. During a median follow-up of 21.1 months, there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) between the two groups.
conclusionRobotic surgery for older patients with colorectal cancer demonstrates comparable safety and efficacy to laparoscopic surgery, while offering significantly improved control of perioperative inflammatory responses.
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.