SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis with comparison against published systematic reviews.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remains debated. We performed an updated meta-analysis through June 2026, with cross-validation against published systematic reviews. PubMed was searched for comparative studies of laparoscopic versus robotic colorectal surgery. After deduplication, 51 primary studies met inclusion criteria; three verified published meta-analyses (2023-2025) were cross-referenced. Meta-analysis used Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (OR) with DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models, computed as robotic/laparoscopic (OR > 1 indicates higher event rates with robotic surgery). Only studies providing extractable abstract-level event counts contributed to quantitative synthesis. Primary outcomes were overall complications, anastomotic leak, and conversion to open surgery. Of 51 eligible studies, extractable abstract-level data supported quantitative analysis for complications (4 studies, 654 patients), anastomotic leak (3 studies, 840 patients), and conversion (5 studies, 2,331 patients). In these limited abstract-level data, robotic surgery was associated with higher rates across all three primary outcomes: complications (RE OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.59-4.06, I² = 68.5%), anastomotic leak (RE OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.71-4.40, I² = 0%), and conversion to open surgery (RE OR 4.00, 95% CI 2.18-7.32, I² = 54.3%). These findings conflict with several published systematic reviews that report robotic advantages for conversion and mixed results for anastomotic leak. In this abstract-level meta-analysis, the limited extractable data show higher event rates with robotic surgery, likely reflecting confounding by indication (selective use of robotic platforms for more complex cases) rather than genuine platform inferiority. The quantitative results, based on only 3-5 studies per outcome (8-10% of eligible studies), are unsuitable for clinical inference. Cross-validation against published full-text systematic reviews reveals contradictory findings, emphasizing that abstract-level data extraction is methodologically inadequate for surgical meta-analysis and that standardized reporting of exact event counts in abstracts is urgently needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.