ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Robotic surgery in gastrointestinal cancers: short-term clinical outcomes and micro-costing analysis from a reference oncologic center.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02292914 (Prospective Analysis of Robot-Assisted Surgery), which is not on this 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.
Prospective Analysis of Robot-Assisted Surgery
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic Surgery (RS) adoption in public healthcare is limited by high costs. The authors evaluated clinical outcomes and micro-costs of RS for Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers at a Brazilian reference center.
methodsA prospective, randomized trial (NCT02292914) compared RS (da Vinci Si) to a mixed comparator arm (laparoscopic/open) for esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and rectal resection. Primary outcomes were Length of Stay (LOS) and per-patient operative costs. Micro-costing followed national guidelines, including deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle.
resultsThe authors analyzed 135 patients (65 RS, 70 control). RS significantly reduced LOS in esophagectomy (14.7 ± 8.2 vs. 20.3 ± 7.4 days, p < 0.001) and rectal resection (8.9 ± 2.1 vs. 10.0 ± 2.5 days, p < 0.05); gastrectomy LOS was similar (11.3 ± 3.8 vs. 11.5 ± 4.1). Estimated blood loss decreased by > 50% across all RS procedures (p < 0.05). Oncologic adequacy (R0 rates and lymph node yield) was comparable between groups. No significant differences in major complications occurred. RS increased per-patient incremental costs: esophagectomy +US$ 3,018; gastrectomy +US$ 2,816; and rectal resection +US$ 1,470, with a pooled GI incremental cost of +US$ 2,326 (95% CrI: 1,718-2,944). Proprietary instruments were the primary cost drivers.
conclusionsRobotic GI surgery reduces LOS and blood loss with oncologic outcomes comparable to conventional approaches. However, it carries a significant cost premium (approx. US$ 2,326/case). Whether these clinical gains justify the investment within the public system requires further multicenter studies incorporating long-term quality-of-life data.
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.