SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic versus Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: an updated 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 and Aim: As robotic surgery gains momentum in colorectal surgery, its role in abdominoperineal resections remains debatable. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to update the current literature. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to October 22, 2025. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects models with DerSimonian–Laird for dichotomous and Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman for continuous data. Heterogeneity was assessed using I², and study quality was evaluated with ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Subgroup analysis was also performed. Results: Nine studies (n = 10,838; eight observational and one RCT) were included. Robotic APR was associated with longer operative time (MD 21.43 min; p = 0.03), lower blood loss (MD − 26.31 mL; p = 0.0002), reduced conversion to open surgery (OR 0.34; p = 0.01), and shorter hospital stay (MD − 1.18 days; p = 0.01) compared with laparoscopy. No significant differences were observed in intraoperative or postoperative complications, reoperation, readmission, oncologic parameters, or costs. In cohorts > 100 patients/arm, only conversion rate remained significant (OR 0.32; p = 0.02). In cohorts < 100 patients/arm, robotic surgery showed lower blood loss (p = 0.03), fewer positive circumferential margins (p = 0.04), and shorter hospital stay (p = 0.04). In propensity-matched studies, only positive circumferential margins favored robotics (OR 0.32; p = 0.01). No significant differences were found in patients ≥ 65 years. In patients < 65 years, robotics was associated with lower blood loss (p = 0.01), lower conversion rates (p = 0.006), shorter hospital stay (p = 0.03), but higher costs (p = 0.02). Conclusion: RAPR demonstrates comparable safety and oncologic outcomes to laparoscopy, while offering advantages in reducing blood loss, conversion to open surgery, and hospital stay. These benefits were more pronounced in younger patients and smaller cohorts. However, operative time and costs remain higher, and overall certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, underscoring the need for further large-scale randomized trials. PROSPERO registration: CRD420261298072.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41893932What 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.