ArticleAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2026
Clinical Implementation and Perioperative Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Pelvic Exenteration for Primary Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Japanese Experience.
Article in Annals of gastroenterological 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Robot-assisted pelvic exenteration (RPE) has been introduced as a minimally invasive option for selected patients; however, its clinical implementation, patient selection, and perioperative outcomes for primary rectal cancer remain unclear. This study describes the use and outcomes of RPE in a multicenter Japanese cohort. Methods: This retrospective observational secondary analysis included patients who underwent pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary rectal cancer at 26 Japanese institutions between January 2012 and October 2022. Patient characteristics, surgical indications, temporal trends in operative approach, and perioperative outcomes were summarized descriptively. Propensity score-matched analyses were performed as supplementary exploratory analyses. Results: Among 135 patients, 43 (32%) underwent RPE, 57 (42%) underwent laparoscopic PE, and 35 (26%) underwent open PE. In the RPE cohort, median operative time was 690 min, median blood loss was 360 mL, and 13 patients (30%) received intraoperative transfusion. One patient (2%) required conversion to open surgery, and RM0 resection was achieved in 42 (98%). Clavien-Dindo Grade II or higher and Grade III or higher complications within 30 days occurred in 16 (37%) and seven (16%) patients, respectively. No patient underwent reoperation during hospitalization or died within 30 days. Grade III or higher morbidity between 31 and 90 days occurred in five patients (12%). Median hospital stay was 23 days. Conclusion: RPE was performed with acceptable perioperative outcomes in selected patients with primary rectal cancer. It may serve as a complementary approach at institutions with sufficient experience in PE, whereas open surgery remains essential for extensive or technically demanding disease.
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.