SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic resection for transverse colon and splenic flexure cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transverse colon and splenic flexure cancer resections are technically demanding because of variable vascular anatomy, multiquadrant dissection, and proximity to the pancreas and spleen. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared robotic and laparoscopic outcomes and separately summarized published robotic experience. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched through 18 July 2026. Six non-randomized comparative studies included 167 robotic and 296 laparoscopic patients. Overall morbidity (risk ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-1.45), major morbidity (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.27-1.34), anastomotic leakage (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22-1.79), reoperation, and lymph-node yield did not differ significantly. Conversion occurred in 0 of 149 robotic and 14 of 278 laparoscopic procedures (Peto odds ratio 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.62), although events were sparse. Robotic surgery was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean difference - 1.01 days, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.37), whereas operative time was highly heterogeneous. Across 10 robotic cohorts comprising 201 patients, pooled overall morbidity was 22.4%, major morbidity 4.9%, anastomotic leakage 3.0%, and R0 resection 98.4%; no 30-day death occurred among 183 reporting patients. Robotic resection is feasible and provides short-term and pathological outcomes comparable with laparoscopy. The shorter hospital stay and lower observed conversion rate suggest clinical advantages, supporting robotic surgery as a valuable minimally invasive option in experienced centers while awaiting confirmation from standardized prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42645693What 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.