Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42791409›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026

Transanal robotic versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for complex distal colorectal lesions: a comparative study.

Metincan Erkaya, Mustafa Oruc, Josh Sommovilla, Salih Karahan, Joseph A Trunzo, Michael Valente, Scott R Steele, David Liska, Emre Gorgun

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Metincan ErkayaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4707-6059
Mustafa OrucDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Josh SommovillaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Salih KarahanDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Joseph A TrunzoDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Michael ValenteDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Scott R SteeleDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
David LiskaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Emre GorgunDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. gorgune@ccf.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically challenging for complex colorectal lesions, while endorobotic submucosal dissection (ERSD) has emerged as a transanal minimally invasive alternative offering high-definition 3D visualization and improved instrument dexterity. However, evidence-based technique selection criteria remain unclear. This study compares the technical success and operative efficiency between ERSD and ESD using a lesion size-stratified analysis to guide technique selection.

methodsRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients who underwent ERSD or ESD for distal colorectal lesions at a tertiary referral center (2020-2024). All procedures were performed by a single expert endoluminal surgeon to eliminate learning curve bias. The Da Vinci SP robot was used for ERSD. The primary outcomes included en bloc resection rates, operative time, and perioperative complications. Lesions were stratified by surface area: small (< 10 cm

resultsA total of 164 patients were analyzed (ERSD: n = 79, ESD: n = 85). ERSD patients had significantly larger lesions (median surface area 18.4 vs 6.3 cm

conclusionEndorobotic submucosal dissection demonstrated substantial time savings for lesions ≥ 10 cm

Indexed as

Endoluminal surgeryEndorobotic submucosal dissection (ERSD)Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)Robotic surgeryR-TAMISTransanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS)

Identifiers

PMID42791409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.