SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Perioperative impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for minimally invasive colorectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe added value of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols in minimally invasive colorectal surgery remains debated. This study synthesized available evidence to examine how ERAS performs in minimally invasive colorectal resection, with attention to both effectiveness and safety.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of these documents, covering key databases such as the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. The latest information was updated up to December 2025. Data analyses were conducted using STATA 18. Continuous outcomes were expressed as weighted mean differences, while categorical outcomes were summarized with odds ratios, each accompanied by 95% confidence intervals. The rigor of the included studies was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
resultsFive eligible studies encompassing 2324 patients were synthesized. Compared with conventional care, ERAS implementation was associated with a meaningful reduction in length of hospital stay (WMD = - 2.38 days; 95% CI: -4.16, - 0.61; P < 0.01), alongside fewer overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.68; P < 0.05) and a decreased occurrence of postoperative ileus (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.86; P < 0.05). Readmission rates were comparable between groups (OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.55, 1.79; P = 0.952), and no meaningful difference was observed in operative time (WMD = 3.53, 95% CI: -15.76, 22.81; P = 0.115).
conclusionsERAS protocols act synergistically with minimally invasive colorectal surgery to accelerate recovery and reduce complications without compromising safety. Future investigations with prospective designs are needed to confirm the robustness of these results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41665757What 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.