ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Transanal versus robotic total mesorectal excision for mid- and low-rectal cancer: A single-center comparative cohort of 109 patients.
Article 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.
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.
- Repositioning transanal total mesorectal excision in the robotic era.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be performed via transanal TME (TaTME) or robotic TME (R-TME), yet comparative evidence in predominantly non-obese Asian cohorts remains limited. We evaluated a consecutive retrospective cohort during our institutional transition from TaTME to R-TME. Between 2016 and 2022, 109 patients with mid- or low-rectal adenocarcinoma underwent curative TaTME (n = 40) or R-TME (n = 69). The primary analysis used propensity score matching (37 pairs) based on age, sex, and tumor location. Outcomes included pathologic margins and lymph-node yield, perioperative results, and 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In the matched cohort, pathologic outcomes were comparable, with similar circumferential resection margin/distal margin positivity and lymph-node yield; distal margin length showed a nonsignificant trend toward being longer after TaTME (median 1.8 vs. 1.5 cm; P = 0.079). R-TME required longer operative time (median 330 vs. 251 min; P < 0.001) but was associated with less blood loss (30 vs. 90 mL; P = 0.014) and shorter hospital stay (7 vs. 8 days; P = 0.016); conversion occurred in 13.5% after TaTME versus 0% after R-TME (P = 0.054). Three-year OS and PFS did not differ between groups (log-rank P = 0.701 and P = 0.898, respectively), and results were consistent in a sensitivity analysis restricted to 2019–2020. Limitations include retrospective design, modest sample size, and temporal confounding. In this transition cohort, TaTME and R-TME achieved comparable short-term oncologic and survival outcomes; R-TME offered perioperative advantages, while TaTME showed a trend toward a longer distal margin that warrants cautious interpretation.
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.