ArticleBJS open2026
Short-term outcomes in robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: population-based study.
Article in BJS open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective cohort study compared short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using data from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry.
methodAll patients undergoing elective minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer between 2014 and 2021 and registered in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry were assessed for eligibility, with patients who underwent robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal cancer resection included in the study. The primary outcome was a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM+). Secondary outcomes included conversion to open surgery, total mesorectal excision (TME) specimen quality, and 30-day overall and surgical complications. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.
resultsOf 12 703 patients registered during the study period, 10 914 underwent abdominal resection; of these, 5874 were analysed in this study (3578 robotic-assisted; 2296 conventional laparoscopic surgery). There was no difference in CRM+ between the robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic surgery groups (6.5% versus 5.9%, respectively; P = 0.291). Conversion to open surgery was more frequent in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (16.1% versus 9.1%; P < 0.001). In addition, 30-day surgical complications were more common in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery group (21.5% versus 19.3%; P = 0.044), including a higher rate of anastomotic leakage (10.9% versus 7.4%; P = 0.001). In multivariable analysis, neither technique was an independent predictor of CRM+ (odds ratio (OR) 0.99; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 0.75 to 1.30; P = 0.925). For secondary outcomes robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery reduced the risk of conversion to open surgery (OR 0.51; 95% c.i. 0.41 to 0.63; P < 0.001), but resulted in fewer complete TME specimens (OR 0.66; 95% c.i. 0.52 to 0.83; P < 0.001).
conclusionNo short-term oncological advantage in terms of radial margin positivity was demonstrated between the two techniques. Findings regarding conversion rates, TME specimen quality, and anastomotic leakage warrant further investigation.
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.