Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42704554›Full record

Observational studyJournal of robotic surgery2026

Staying minimally invasive: robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in a propensity-weighted Italian multicentre cohort.

Alessio Giordano, Luigi Marano, Giuseppe Lamacchia, Jacopo Andreuccetti, Antonio Brillantino, Massimo Farina, Michela Mineccia, Maria Chiara Ranucci, Mirko Barone, Manuela Mastronardi and 2 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07718919 completednot on this map

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)

TypeobservationalSponsorAcademy of Applied Medical and Social Sciences, PolandRan2022 to 2026Enrolled6,129ConditionsColo-rectal Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Alessio GiordanoDepartment of Emergency and Acceptance, Emergency Surgery Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.
Luigi MaranoDepartment of Medicine, Academy of Applied Medical and Social Sciences (AMiSNS), Elbląg, Poland.
Giuseppe LamacchiaGeneral Surgery Unit, Regina Apostolorum Hospital, Albano Laziale, Italy. peppinolam@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3758-5633
Jacopo AndreuccettiGeneral Surgery 2, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Antonio BrillantinoGeneral Surgery Unit III, AORN Cardarelli, Naples, Italy.
Massimo FarinaUOSD Chirurgia Generale e d'Urgenza, San Giovanni Addolorata Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Michela MinecciaDepartment of General and Oncologic Surgery, Ospedale Mauriziano Umberto I, Turin, Italy.
Maria Chiara RanucciUOC Chirurgia Generale e d'Urgenza, Ospedale di Tivoli, ASL Roma 5, Tivoli, Italy.
Mirko BaroneDepartment of General and Thoracic Surgery, SS Annuziata University Hospital, Chieti, Italy.
Manuela MastronardiGeneral Surgery Unit, University Hospital of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Nicola CillaraGeneral Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, Santissima Trinità Hospital, ASL8, Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
ATOCCS Collaborative Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Colorectal NeoplasmsConversion to Open SurgeryLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedCohort StudiesColorectal Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansItalyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesColorectal cancerConversion to open surgeryLaparoscopic surgeryMulticentre cohortPropensity scoreRobotic surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.