ArticleCancers2026
Quality Without Compromise: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Locally Advanced Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 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.
- Article
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
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery is the standard approach in colorectal cancer (CRC), yet the clinical value of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) compared with laparoscopy remains under debate. This study aimed to compare surgical quality using textbook outcome (TO) and textbook oncological outcome (TOO) in patients undergoing minimally invasive resection for locally advanced CRC.
methodsA retrospective analysis of patients with locally advanced CRC (cT2-4N0-2M0) treated in a high-volume centre was performed. Patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic surgery were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline characteristics. TO was defined as an optimal perioperative course without complications, conversion, reintervention, prolonged length of stay, or mortality. TOO extended TO by including oncological parameters such as R0 resection and adequate lymph node yield.
resultsA total of 123 patients were included (80 laparoscopic, 43 robotic), with 80 patients analyzed after PSM (40 per group). RAS was associated with significantly higher rates of intracorporeal (97% vs. 18.9%) and mechanical anastomoses (96.9% vs. 48.6%). No differences were observed in postoperative complications, reintervention rates, length of stay, or mortality. Although the comprehensive complication index was lower in the robotic group, this did not translate into improved TO or TOO rates. After matching, TO was achieved in 72.5% of RAS and 85.0% of laparoscopic cases (
conclusionsRobotic surgery for locally advanced CRC provides comparable perioperative safety and oncological quality to laparoscopy. The implementation of RAS in a high-volume centre does not compromise short-term outcomes, supporting its safe integration into clinical practice.
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.