SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer: meta-analysis of pathological quality indicators.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotal mesorectal excision (TME) quality is a key determinant of oncological outcomes in rectal cancer. While robotic surgery offers technical advantages over laparoscopy in the confined pelvis, its superiority regarding pathological outcomes remains debated. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing robotic and laparoscopic TME focusing on quality indicators of TME and risk factors for incomplete TME.
methodsA PROSPERO-registered systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE up to May 2025. Comparative studies reporting pathological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic TME were included. Primary endpoints were TME completeness, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity and distal resection margin (DRM) positivity. Secondary analysis included baseline characteristics (male gender, BMI, bulky tumours, distance to anal verge, neoadjuvant radiotherapy) and local recurrence rate.
resultsFifty-six studies (27,648 patients; robotic 10,629, laparoscopic 17,019) were included. Robotic surgery was associated with significantly more complete TME specimens (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.23-1.82, p < 0.001) and fewer positive DRMs (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.97, p = 0.031). CRM positivity was comparable between groups (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77-1.12, p = 0.44). In random-effects analysis, there was a non-significant trend towards fewer local recurrences after robotic TME (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54-1.05, p = 0.09). Robotic cohorts more frequently included male patients, distal tumours and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, suggesting preferential selection of technically challenging cases.
conclusionsRobotic TME is associated with higher specimen completeness and lower DRM positivity compared with laparoscopic TME, while CRM positivity and local recurrence rates appear broadly similar. These data support the use of robotics as a primary minimally invasive option for mid-low rectal cancer; however, as a result of low certainty of evidence, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. SYNOPSIS: This meta-analysis provides the most up-to-date synthesis of pathological outcomes comparing robotic and laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer, incorporating data from 56 studies including the recent REAL and COLRAR randomized trials. Unlike previous reviews, it exclusively analyses total mesorectal excision procedures, excluding partial or high anterior resections, thereby eliminating a major source of heterogeneity. The findings demonstrate that robotic TME is associated with higher specimen completeness and fewer positive distal margins, even in technically demanding mid- and low-rectal cancers, supporting the role of robotics as the preferred minimally invasive approach in mid-low, difficult tumours.
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.