ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopy for colorectal cancer resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in 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 open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer is a major global health concern that requires successful surgical treatments. While robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) provides prospective improvements, laparoscopic surgery has proven to yield better results than open surgeries. Methods: From 2018 to December 2024, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies comparing RAS and conventional laparoscopic surgery were included. The primary outcomes assessed were length of hospital stay, conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, and operating time. Using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, statistical analysis was performed, including subgroup analyses by anatomical site (colon, rectum, colorectal). Sensitivity analyses and heterogeneity were conducted. Results: 21 studies involving over 70,000 patients were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated significantly longer operative times with RAS (MD = 0.161-1.049, Conclusion: When compared to CLS, RAS has the advantage of lowering conversion and re-operation rates, albeit at the expense of higher operating time. CLS led to shorter hospital stays, but in some circumstances, the complication rates were on level with or lower than those of RAS. According to these results, RAS might be useful in some surgical situations and patient demographics. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/614084, PROSPERO CRD42024614084.
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.