SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Resection quality and oncologic outcomes after robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.
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. 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.
- Repositioning transanal total mesorectal excision in the robotic era.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
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
Total mesorectal excision (TME) for mid and low rectal cancer is technically demanding, and resection quality strongly influences local control and survival. Robotic platforms may offer technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy, but oncologic benefits remain uncertain. This meta-analysis evaluates resection quality and early oncologic outcomes using evidence exclusively from randomised trials. A PRISMA aligned systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Google Scholar was performed to 22 September 2025. Eligible studies were parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing robotic with laparoscopic TME for mid or low rectal adenocarcinoma, defined as tumour height of 10 cm or less from the anal verge. Co-primary outcomes were circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity and completeness of the mesorectum. Secondary outcomes included conversion to open surgery, intraoperative complications, and three-year locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Odds ratios and hazard ratios were pooled using random effects models. Four randomised trials met inclusion, enrolling 1,952 patients. Robotic TME reduced CRM positivity (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.87) and increased complete TME rates (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.12). Conversion to open surgery was less frequent with robotics (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79). Intraoperative and early postoperative complications did not differ. Two trials reported three-year oncologic outcomes. Robotic TME was associated with lower three-year locoregional recurrence (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.81) and a modest improvement in disease-free survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-0.99), although event rates were low and estimates should be interpreted cautiously. Overall survival did not differ (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.11). In mid and low rectal cancer, robotic TME was associated with improved pathological resection quality and lower conversion rates compared with laparoscopic TME, without clear differences in early perioperative morbidity There is emerging evidence of improved three-year locoregional recurrence and disease-free survival.
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.