SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2026
Restorative resection in robot-assisted versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The British journal of 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe surgical treatment of rectal cancer is based on the principle of total mesorectal excision (TME). Owing to its technological advantages, robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (R-TME) is hypothesized to facilitate primary anastomosis more frequently than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether R-TME is associated with a higher likelihood of restorative surgery compared with L-TME.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number: 1106767). PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies from January 2010 to January 2026. Pooled ORs and mean differences were calculated using a random-effects model.
resultsTwenty studies were included, reporting on 7133 patients. The pooled analysis demonstrated a significantly higher likelihood of restorative surgery with R-TME compared with L-TME (OR 1.43 (95% c.i. 1.04 to 1.98)). In a subgroup analysis of studies including patients after 2020, a stronger effect was observed (OR 2.86 (95% c.i. 1.80 to 4.53)). No significant differences were observed in anastomotic leakage, postoperative complications, reoperations, and readmissions. R-TME was associated with a lower conversion rate compared with L-TME (OR 0.37 (95% c.i. 0.28 to 0.49)).
conclusionR-TME is associated with a higher likelihood of primary anastomosis formation while maintaining a comparable safety profile. The more pronounced effect in recent studies likely reflects increasing surgical expertise. Future research should determine whether these advantages translate into measurable improvements in patient quality of life.
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.