Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41957769›Full record

SynthesisBMC surgery2026

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resection in oncologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Hussein Mussa Muafa, Malika Abdu Balkam

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hussein Mussa Muafa *Department of Surgery, 21 September University for Medical and Applied Sciences, Sana'a, Yemen. h.m.muafa@21umas.edu.ye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5290-025X
Malika Abdu Balkam *Department of Surgery, Sana'a University, Sana'a, Yemen.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-0409-7289

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is increasingly used for colorectal cancer (CRC), but its clinical and oncologic advantages over conventional laparoscopy (LS) remain uncertain. Prior meta-analyses (e.g., Huang et al., Front Oncol 13;1273378, 2023; Zou et al., BMC Surg 25;86, 2025) have included overlapping RCTs but vary in methodology, scope, and analytical transparency. This review aims to provide an updated, independently re-analyzed synthesis of RCTs published from 2015 to 2025, with full PRISMA compliance, explicit analytic reproducibility, and expanded evaluation of bias and evidence certainty.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was retrospectively registered in PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD420251237158). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched (January 1, 2015–January 31, 2025). Full reproducible search strings, PICOS criteria, and inclusion/exclusion rules were predefined. Only RCTs comparing RAS vs. LS for malignant colorectal disease were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Meta-analyses used DerSimonian–Laird random-effects models; standardized procedures were applied for converting medians/IQRs into means/SDs and for continuity corrections in zero-event trials. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0, and evidence certainty was graded using GRADE.

resultsA total of 12 RCTs encompassing 3,107 patients met the inclusion criteria. RAS resulted in significantly lower conversion-to-open rates (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.28–0.63; I²=18%) compared with LS. Operative time was consistently longer with RAS (MD + 23.8 min; 95% CI 14.2–33.4; I²=67%). Overall postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ II) were comparable (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.76–1.13; I²=22%). Length of stay showed a small but significant reduction with RAS (MD − 0.8 days; 95% CI − 1.3 to − 0.2; I²=49%). Pathologic outcomes showed lower circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity with RAS (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.41–0.85). Lymph node retrieval was slightly higher with RAS (MD + 0.71 nodes; 95% CI 0.25–1.18). Distal margins and TME completeness were equivalent. No RCT reported mature long-term oncologic outcomes; evidence remains limited to short-term surrogates.

conclusionsIn contemporary RCTs, RAS provides fewer conversions and slightly better pathologic surrogates, while maintaining similar morbidity compared to LS. The main trade-off remains longer operative time and higher resource use. True oncologic equivalence cannot be confirmed until long-term RCT data mature. Advanced imaging (e.g., SOMATOM Force CT), age-specific MIS evidence, and the emergence of endoluminal robotic systems are likely to shape future refinements in technique and patient selection.

Indexed as

ColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresColorectal Surgical ProceduresHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCircumferential marginColorectal cancerConversionLaparoscopyLymph node harvestMeta-analysisOncologic outcomes.PRISMARandomized controlled trialsRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID41957769
PMCPMC13214443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.