ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Comparison of surgical outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: a single-center cohort study.
Article 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the feasibility of robot-assisted right colectomy (RRC) for right-sided colon cancer by comparing its short-term surgical outcomes with those of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients undergoing elective right colectomy for stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma (LRC, n = 75; RRC, n = 50). The primary endpoint was overall 30-day postoperative morbidity; overall survival (OS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and other perioperative measures were secondary. A pre-specified exploratory analysis measured anastomotic time on intraoperative video in patients receiving an intracorporeal anastomosis (IA; robotic, n = 10; laparoscopic, n = 3). Median follow-up was 22.6 months. Baseline characteristics were balanced. Blood loss was lower with RRC (median 5 vs. 10 mL, p = 0.005), a clinically irrelevant difference, while operative time was longer (290 vs. 251 min, p = 0.05); setup and docking took a median of 24.5 min and console time 211.5 min. IA was used far more often in RRC (88.0% vs. 6.7%, p < 0.001). Morbidity, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III events, leakage, and hospital stay were similar. Robotic IA (n = 10) was faster than laparoscopic IA (n = 3; 33.4 vs. 40.7 min, p = 0.049), though underpowered. Neither OS nor RFS differed (log-rank p = 0.12 and 0.13). RRC was as safe as LRC perioperatively, with no difference in early OS or RFS, although the study was not powered for equivalence. The shorter robotic anastomotic time, observed despite greater institutional experience with laparoscopic IA, is hypothesis-generating and merits confirmation in adequately powered studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42671704What 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.