ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of short-term outcomes and costs.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 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.
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
purposeRobotic and laparoscopic approaches to rectal cancer surgery yield comparable short-term outcomes; however, comparative inpatient costs, particularly when stratified by tumor level, remain insufficiently characterized. This study compared short-term clinical and pathological outcomes, as well as index hospitalization costs, for minimally invasive surgery in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.
methodsAll consecutive patients with mid (5-10 cm from the anal verge) and low (<5 cm from the anal verge) rectal cancer who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery between January 2018 and December 2023 were identified. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed using the following covariates: age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, tumor level, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, and presence of a defunctioning stoma. Outcomes and cost components were compared overall and stratified by tumor level.
resultsAfter matching, 282 patients were included (laparoscopic surgery, n=141; robotic surgery, n=141). Median operative time was longer in the robotic group (368 minutes vs. 325 minutes, P=0.007), whereas the median postoperative length of stay was similar between groups (6.0 days vs. 6.0 days, P=0.255). Rates of conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leak, 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmission did not differ significantly. Histopathological indicators of resection quality, including lymph node yield, margin clearance, and completeness of total mesorectal excision, were comparable. Mean index hospitalization cost was higher in the robotic group (SGD 37,436 vs. SGD 31,724; difference, SGD 5,713; P=0.008), with a greater difference observed in mid rectal cancer (SGD 8,606; P=0.008) than in low rectal cancer (SGD 1,811; P=0.465).
conclusionRobotic and laparoscopic surgery yielded comparable short-term clinical and pathological outcomes. Although costs were higher with robotic surgery, the cost differential was smaller for low rectal cancer, identifying this subgroup as a priority for prospective evaluation of clinical and economic value.
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.