ArticleBMC surgery2026
Robotic vs. laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: perioperative outcomes and survival.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer have been demonstrated, its peri-operative safety and long-term survival benefit in patients who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) remain unclear.
methodA retrospective cohort of 463 consecutive rectal-cancer patients who underwent either robot-assisted anterior resection or laparoscopic anterior resection after NCRT at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from June 2016 to August 2023 was analyzed. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline variables that could affect surgical outcomes and survival. Peri-operative parameters, complication rates, and pathological findings were compared, and 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated.
resultA total of 121 patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery and 342 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were included in the study. Operative time was longer in the robot-assisted group both before and after matching. Before matching, the robot-assisted group showed a lower rate of ileostomy (65.3% vs 76.6%, P = 0.021), an advantage that disappeared after PSM (65.3% vs 75.2%, P = 0.063). In the matched cohort, the 5-year DFS was 89.8% for robot-assisted versus 82.3% for laparoscopic (P = 0.130), whereas the 5-year OS was higher in the robot-assisted group than in the laparoscopic group (96.8% vs 86.8%; P = 0.019). In the primary preoperative covariate-adjusted Cox model after PSM, the association between robot-assisted surgery and OS was attenuated and did not reach conventional statistical significance (HR = 0.231, 95% CI 0.052-1.015; P = 0.052).
conclusionsRobot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery showed comparable perioperative outcomes and DFS after NCRT for rectal cancer. Although an apparent OS difference was observed in the matched cohort, this finding was attenuated in the primary preoperative covariate-adjusted Cox model and should be interpreted cautiously given the potential for residual confounding.
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.