SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection in younger rectal cancer cohorts: a systematic review and meta-analysis with narrative functional assessment.
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 low anterior resection (R-LAR) has been proposed to overcome technical limitations of laparoscopy in rectal surgery. However, previous meta-analyses have evaluated mixed-age populations, and no meta-analysis has specifically investigated younger patients (aged < 65 years) undergoing low anterior resection. This study aimed to compare operative, short-term postoperative, and oncological outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic low anterior resection in this cohort. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA 2020 and the Cochrane Handbook, with prospective registration in Prospero. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2026. Comparative studies evaluating R-LAR versus L-LAR in younger rectal cancer cohorts, defined as studies with mean patient age ≤ 65 years, were included. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled mean differences (MD), odds ratios (OR), and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and RoB2, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. A total of 16 studies were included. Compared with laparoscopy, R-LAR was associated with longer operative duration (MD 24.59 min, 95% CI 3.85-45.33, p = 0.02, I² = 96%), lower conversion to open surgery (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27-0.53, p < 0.0001, I² = 38%), lower overall complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.97, p = 0.02, I² = 0%), lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45-0.77, p = 0.006, I² = 0%), lower 30-day reoperation (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.98, p = 0.04, I² = 0%), higher complete TME rates (OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.14-5.10, p = 0.003, I² = 0%) and shorter hospital stay (MD -0.82, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.13, p = 0.02, I²=97%). Estimated blood loss (p = 0.05) and major complications (p = 0.05) were borderline significant in favor of R-LAR. Anastomotic leakage (p = 0.17), postoperative ileus (p = 0.49), time to first flatus (p = 0.12), time to diet initiation (p = 0.10), CRM positivity (p = 0.56), lymph node yield (p = 0.09), local recurrence (p = 0.67), loop ileostomy (p = 0.56), disease-free survival (p = 0.53), and overall survival (p = 0.73) were comparable. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Functional outcomes were insufficient for pooling. Robotic low anterior resection in younger rectal cancer cohorts may improve several perioperative and technical outcomes without compromising oncological adequacy. Further high-quality studies are required to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42151640What 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.