Observational studyJournal of robotic surgery2026
Staying minimally invasive: robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in a propensity-weighted Italian multicentre cohort.
Observational study in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT07718919 (Multicentric National Italian Analysis of Textbook Outcome in Colorectal Cancer Surgery The ATOCCS Study on Behalf of the Italian Surgical Association), 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.
Multicentric National Italian Analysis of Textbook Outcome in Colorectal Cancer Surgery The ATOCCS Study on Behalf of the Italian Surgical Association (ACOI, Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare conversion to open surgery after intended robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection in routine multicentre practice. This secondary post hoc analysis of the retrospective ATOCCS cohort included elective, curative-intent resections performed during 2022-2024 at Italian centres using both approaches. Propensity-score overlap weighting with centre indicators and multiple imputation addressed measured confounding and missing covariates. Centre-clustered models estimated adjusted risks, risk differences, and risk ratios. The primary cohort comprised 2,284 patients at 23 centres (1,408 laparoscopic; 876 robotic); conversion was evaluable in 2,278. Conversion occurred in 108/1,403 (7.7%) laparoscopic and 16/875 (1.8%) robotic procedures. Adjusted risks were 9.2% and 2.2%, respectively (risk difference, - 7.0 percentage points; 95% CI, - 11.1 to - 2.8; risk ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.65; P=0.001). Within-centre propensity-score matching produced a similar risk difference (- 7.6 percentage points; 95% CI, - 11.3 to - 4.0). Major morbidity and reoperation did not differ detectably. Robotic surgery was associated with 42.8 min longer adjusted operative time (95% CI, 18.5-67.0), while the length-of-stay ratio was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-1.01). In dual-approach centres, intended robotic surgery was associated with fewer conversions but longer operations and no demonstrated improvement in the principal postoperative outcomes. Residual confounding precludes causal or superiority claims. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT07718919.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42704554What 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.