SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior 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
Robotic surgery has increasingly been adopted for the treatment of rectal cancer. However, most previous meta-analyses included heterogeneous rectal procedures, limiting conclusions specific to low anterior resection. The present study aimed to provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to the most recent date. Comparative studies evaluating robotic low anterior resection (R-LAR) versus laparoscopic low anterior resection (L-LAR) for rectal cancer were included. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Thirty-three studies including 82,149 patients were analyzed (R-LAR: 56,290; L-LAR: 25,859). R-LAR was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40-0.51, p < 0.00001, I²=28%), lower 30-day reoperation rate (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96, p = 0.01, I²=0%), reduced 30-day mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.82, p = 0.002, I²=0%), and higher rate of complete total mesorectal excision (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.38-5.33, p = 0.01, I²=72%). Operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group (MD + 30.58 min, 95% CI 13.71-47.45, p = 0.001, I²=97%). No significant differences were observed for estimated blood loss, overall complications, major complications, anastomotic leakage, postoperative ileus, recovery parameters, length of hospital stay, readmission, circumferential margin positivity, lymph node yield, local recurrence, diverting ileostomy formation, disease-free survival, or overall survival. Robotic LAR may reduce conversion, reoperation, and short-term mortality and may improve completeness of total mesorectal excision, although operative time is longer. These findings suggest potential technical advantages of R-LAR, but high-quality randomized trials are required to determine whether these translate into meaningful clinical benefit.PROSPERO: CRD420261326600.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42126654What 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.