ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections for anal cancer may improve outcomes compared with open surgery: insights from the National Cancer Database.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
backgroundAbdominoperineal resection (APR) is an important treatment option for anal cancer patients with incomplete response or recurrence after chemoradiation, yet the frequency and effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) remain poorly described. This study examines trends and outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open APR using the National Cancer Database (NCDB).
methodsPatients undergoing APR for anal cancer in the NCDB (2010-2022) were categorized by surgical approach based on the initial operative technique, approximating an intention-to-treat framework. The study period was divided into early (2010-2016) and late (2017-2022) eras to assess temporal trends. Demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were compared. Primary endpoints included 30- and 90-day mortality, length of stay, margin positivity, and overall survival.
resultsAmong 3756 patients (831 robotic, 723 laparoscopic, 2202 open), baseline characteristics were similar across approaches. Robotic APR increased significantly in the late era (33.3% vs 13.2%, p < 0.001), whereas open APR declined (48.2% vs 66.9%) and laparoscopic APR remained stable (18.5% vs 19.9%). MIS approaches demonstrated lower 30-day mortality (1.2% robotic vs 1.7% laparoscopic vs 2.2% open, p < 0.001), lower 90-day mortality (3.2% vs 3.6% vs 4.9%, p < 0.001), and fewer margin positivity rates (14.4% vs 14.1% vs 17.8%; p < 0.001). Median length of stay was 5, 6, and 8 days for robotic, laparoscopic, and open, respectively (p < 0.001). Five-year overall survival was 56%, 54%, and 49%. On Cox regression adjusted for age, year, comorbidity, and stage, open APR was associated with a 25% higher hazard of all-cause mortality compared with robotic APR (HR 1.247, CI 1.061-1.466, p = 0.007), while laparoscopic and robotic demonstrated comparable survival.
conclusionsMinimally invasive APR for anal cancer has increased over time and is associated with shorter hospital stays, lower perioperative mortality, fewer positive margins, and improved survival. These findings support laparoscopic and robotic APR as preferred approaches for appropriately selected anal cancer patients.
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.