SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Robotic Transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal neoplasms: A systematic review of outcomes and innovations.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for rectal neoplasms, analyzing data from 26 clinical studies (2011-2024) involving 1,284 patients. The findings demonstrate robust short-term oncologic outcomes, including an 89.1% R0 resection rate for malignant lesions and an 8.3% local recurrence rate at a median follow-up of 28 months. Technical advancements, particularly the development of single-port robotic systems, have yielded significant improvements in procedural efficiency, reducing operative time by 22% while enhancing surgical ergonomics. Comparative analyses reveal advantages over conventional endoscopic TAMIS, including lower conversion rates (4% vs. 12%) and superior maneuverability in confined spaces. However, the review identifies persistent knowledge gaps regarding long-term survival outcomes and cost-effectiveness that require further investigation through prospective trials. The current evidence supports selective use of robotic TAMIS in specialized centers for carefully selected cases, particularly early-stage adenocarcinomas and complex benign lesions, while highlighting the need for standardized training protocols and economic evaluations.
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.