ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improves local control in locally advanced rectal cancer but can make total mesorectal excision technically demanding because treatment-related fibrosis and tissue changes constrain dissection in the pelvis. Robotic platforms may improve dexterity and visualization, yet their comparative value over laparoscopy in the specifically pretreated population remains uncertain. PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 30 August 2026. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Eligible studies compared robotic with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were pooled with random-effects models and small-sample-adjusted confidence intervals. Median-based summaries were converted using established methods. ROBINS-I was used for nonrandomized studies and RoB 2 for the pilot randomized trial; certainty was judged with GRADE. Nineteen reports representing 18 independent cohorts and 6,538 participants were included; 15 cohorts contributed to at least one meta-analysis. Major complications (RR 1.42 (95% CI 0.75 to 2.70; p = 0.217; I²=0.0%; k = 6)), minor complications (RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.74; p = 0.812; I²=33.0%; k = 6)), anastomotic leakage (RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.24; p = 0.311; I²=0.0%; k = 11)) and length of stay (MD -1.29 (95% CI -3.18 to 0.60; p = 0.163; I²=88.2%; k = 13)) did not differ clearly. Robotic surgery reduced conversion to open surgery (RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.94; p = 0.039; I²=0.0%; k = 11)) but prolonged operative time (MD 37.29 (95% CI 1.24 to 73.34; p = 0.044; I²=89.4%; k = 11)). Overall complications (p = 0.596), circumferential-margin positivity (p = 0.995), complete total mesorectal excision (p = 0.306) and blood loss (p = 0.459) did not differ clearly. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery have broadly comparable morbidity and pathological outcomes. Robotics may reduce conversion at the cost of longer operating time, but residual confounding, learning-curve effects and substantial heterogeneity prevent a claim of overall superiority. Large multicenter trials restricted to standardized neoadjuvant pathways are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42803842What 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.