ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Efficacy of Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Initial experience with the MIZZO ENDO 4000 robotic surgical system: a prospective, single-center, multi-specialty study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Circumferential resection margin status and longterm survival outcomes following robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgical resection for locally-advanced rectal cancer: a National Cancer Database (NCDB) study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery increases the adherence to enhanced recovery concepts.Surgical endoscopy · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery is the standard of care for colorectal cancer resection. Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) offers technical advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery (LACS), including superior visualization and dexterity, but its clinical superiority is debatable due to higher costs and longer operative times. Previous meta-analyses were limited by the inclusion of non-randomized studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to provide a definitive comparison of the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes. A systematic search was conducted from January 2000 to December 2025. Only RCTs comparing RAS and LACS for curative-intent colorectal cancer resection were included. The primary outcomes were conversion to open surgery, operative time, and estimated blood loss. The secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, complications (specifically Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III), and pathological metrics. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Fifteen RCTs representing thirteen unique RCTs involving 2,965 (1,487 RAS and 1,478 LACS) patients were included. RAS was associated with a significantly lower rate of conversion to open surgery (risk ratio (RR): 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.78; p=0.001) and reduced hospital length of stay (weighted mean difference (WMD): -0.73 days; 95% CI: -1.28 to -0.19; p=0.009). Operative time was significantly longer in the RAS group (WMD: +39.26 min; p<0.001). RAS resulted in a lower rate of circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.86; p=0.005), while lymph node harvest and overall complication rates were comparable between the groups. RAS demonstrates clear clinical benefits over conventional laparoscopy for colorectal cancer resection, specifically in reducing conversion rates, shortening hospital stay, and improving CRM status, which support the continued adoption of RAS, particularly for complex rectal cancer cases, despite the longer operative times. Future research should focus on long-term functional outcomes and their cost-effectiveness.
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.