ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Association of institutional volume with surgical and oncologic outcomes for robotic rectal cancer surgery: a retrospective review.
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
introductionRobotic surgery has been increasingly adopted for rectal cancer. However, the majority of studies investigating robotic surgery have focused on high-volume institutions. This study aims to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of robotic rectal cancer surgery at low-, medium-, and high-volume institutions.
methodsAdults undergoing robotic proctectomy for primary rectal cancer were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2022). Institutions reporting ≥ 2 years of cases were included. A generalized additive model was used to determine volume thresholds classifying hospitals into low, medium, and high volume based on their rates of conversion to open surgery. Patient characteristics and outcomes were evaluated with chi-squared analysis. Overall survival was assessed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling.
resultsAmong 327 institutions, thresholds for low, medium, and high were 1-4, 5-13, and > 13 cases/year. The total number of patients and facilities for low, medium, and high were 10,945/142, 17,361/147, and 8,828/38, respectively. High-volume institutions (HVIs) operated more frequently on cN1-2 tumors (46.0, 50.0, 53.5%, p < 0.0005), but fewer poorly differentiated tumors (10.2, 9.8, 8.4%, p < 0.0003). HVIs had lower rates of conversion to open (7.9, 5.2, 3.2%, p < 0.0001), lower 90-day mortality (2.2, 1.4, 1.3, p < 0.0001), and more frequently resected ≥ 12 lymph nodes (76.8, 80.5, 85.7%, p < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, there was no difference in long-term overall survival based on institutional volume (medium vs. low: HR 0.97 [0.88-1.07], p = 0.52; high vs. low: HR 0.92 [0.82-1.03], p = 0.13).
conclusionsDifferences in patient selection exist for robotic rectal cancer resection based on hospital volume. HVIs demonstrated better oncologic and perioperative outcomes, but there was no difference in long-term overall survival based on volume. There is an opportunity for low- and medium-volume institutions to achieve appropriate long-term oncologic outcomes, but further work is needed to investigate patient selection and early post-operative mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42560485What 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.