SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Does robotic intersphincteric resection better preserve anal function in low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis?
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgroud: Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an important and challenging sphincter-preserving procedure for patients with low rectal cancer. Preserving anal function is more important than preserving its appearance. Owing to its unique advantages, the robotic platform makes ISR safer and less invasive. Whether this advantage is reflected in functional aspects is worth further exploration. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were systematic researched for articles published relevant literature. The literature was screened independently by two groups, and data on functional, perioperative, and oncology outcomes were extracted and evaluated for bias. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.4 software. Results: Ten studies with a total of 1279 patients were included in our meta-analysis, and Funnel plots suggested no major publication bias. The robotic ISR group had lower Wexner scores [MD = -1.46, 95%CI (-2.03 ∼-0.88), Conclusion: Robotic ISR has potential advantages in preserving the anal function, with fewer complications and similar oncological outcomes compared with Laparoscopic ISR. Due to limitations in sample size and study design, the results of this study still require validation through randomized controlled trials. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD420251012991.
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.