ArticleCureus2026
Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Stapling in Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnastomotic leak remains a major complication following total mesorectal excision (TME). While multiple stapler firings during rectal transection are associated with an increased risk of leaks, robotic stapling platforms offer enhanced articulation and precision that may reduce the number of required firings. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and technical efficiency of robotic vs. conventional laparoscopic stapling for rectal transection during robotic TME.
methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of 57 adult patients who underwent robotic TME for rectal adenocarcinoma in 2025. We stratified patients by the rectal transection device used: robotic stapling (n = 27) or laparoscopic stapling (n = 30). All patients were enrolled in an ileostomy omission protocol, avoiding routine protective diversion and utilizing postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin surveillance to screen for anastomotic leakage. The primary outcome was the proportion of stoma-free patients at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included the number of stapler loads fired, incidence of anastomotic leak, total operative time, and length of in-hospital stay.
resultsBaseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between both cohorts. The 30-day stoma-free rate was significantly higher in the robotic stapling cohort (100%) compared with the laparoscopic cohort (86.6%) (adjusted relative risk (RR): 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-1.33, p = 0.049). Furthermore, robotic stapling required significantly fewer stapler firings (mean: 1.85 ± 0.45 vs. 2.65 ± 0.67; p < 0.001). The incidence of anastomotic leak was 3.7% in the robotic group vs. 16.6% in the laparoscopic group; however, this trend did not reach statistical significance (RR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.03-1.78; p = 0.113). Operative time and length of stay did not differ significantly between the groups.
conclusionUtilizing a robotic stapler during robotic TME significantly reduces the number of firings required for rectal transection and is associated with a higher success rate of safe ileostomy omission when combined with postoperative biomarker surveillance. Larger randomized trials are warranted to definitively establish whether these technical advantages translate to a statistically significant reduction in anastomotic leak rates.
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.