ArticleJournal of gastroenterology2026
A modified Delphi consensus on fusion (laparoscopic and robotic) approaches to colorectal surgery in Asia-Pacific.
Article in Journal of gastroenterology, 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.
- Clinical relevance of the identification of the distal end of the palisade vessel in cases with columnar-lined esophagus: a comment on the study by Hatta et al.Journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFusion surgery, where laparoscopic techniques are purposefully integrated into robotic surgery, is a novel approach that can be used in colorectal surgery. However, a standard definition and practical guidance are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to generate consensus to standardise the definition of fusion surgery and consequently raise awareness of fusion surgical approaches and their appropriate use cases.
methodsWe conducted a two-round modified Delphi study with 17 colorectal surgeons from Asia-Pacific (5 Steering Committee [SC]; 12 Expert Panellists [EP]). Statements were drafted by the SC based on clinical experience, published literature and comments from the EP. The EP rated these statements anonymously on a 5-point Likert scale. A virtual expert meeting was held between voting rounds to discuss the statements. Consensus was predefined as ≥ 75% "agree"/"strongly agree" or "disagree"/"strongly disagree".
resultsUltimately, consensus was reached on 23 statements: "Defining Fusion Surgery in Colorectal Surgery" (n = 2); "When to Consider Fusion Surgery in Colorectal Surgery" (n = 10; 5 statements each on "Device Factors" and "Surgeon Factors"); "Task- or Procedure-Specific Considerations in Colorectal Surgery" (n = 11).
conclusionThe Expert Panel were aligned on the definition of fusion surgery as a procedure where laparoscopic tools and techniques are electively combined with robotic surgery. Fusion surgery may achieve similar safety and effectiveness as fully robotic surgery, whilst potentially offering advantages such as improved ergonomics, shorter operating times and educational opportunities for bedside assistants. This consensus serves as a valuable guide containing considerations for surgeons to encourage the appropriate adoption of fusion approaches in colorectal surgery.
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.