Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41372621›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026

RoLaCaRT-1: pilot randomised phase II study of robotic vs laparoscopic hemicolectomy for right colon cancer.

Andrew R L Stevenson, Jim S Khan, Kate Wilson, Rachel L O'Connell, Stephen Pillinger, Craig Lynch, Nader K Francis, Nathan J Curtis, Danilo Miskovic, Andrew D Clouston and 14 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
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

24 authors.

Andrew R L StevensonRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. arl.stevenson@me.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5639-3526
Jim S KhanDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Kate WilsonFaculty of Medicine and Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical, Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Rachel L O'ConnellFaculty of Medicine and Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical, Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Stephen PillingerDepartment of Robotic Colorectal Surgery, Sydney Adventist Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Craig LynchDepartment of Robotic Colorectal Surgery, Sydney Adventist Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Nader K FrancisThe Griffin Institute, Northwick Park, UK.
Nathan J CurtisDepartment of Surgery, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, UK.
Danilo MiskovicSt Marks Hospital, London, UK.
Andrew D CloustonFaculty of Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Gregory C MillerFaculty of Health, Medicine and Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Carina F K ChowRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Satish WarrierDivision of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Alexander G HeriotDivision of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Darren TonkinColorectal Department, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Stephen BellCabrini Malvern, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Mark D MuhlmannColorectal Surgical Department, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kirk K S AustinDepartment of Colorectal Surgery Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Christopher J GillespieDepartment of Surgery, Mater Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
David W LarsonDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Larissa TempleColorectal Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Centre, New York, NY, USA.
Alessio PigazziWeill Cornell Medical Centre, New York, NY, USA.
Rebecca Mercieca-BebberFaculty of Medicine and Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical, Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
John SimesFaculty of Medicine and Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical, Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious stage I-III colon cancer trials demonstrated improved peri-operative and similar long-term oncological outcomes with minimally invasive approaches compared with open surgery. Subsequent technical developments, including intracorporeal anastomosis, complete mesocolic excision (CME), refined pathologic grading systems and robotic approaches are increasingly used despite minimal supporting evidence. This international phase II trial aims to assess patient, surgical and pathological outcomes following robotic (RRHC) with laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRHC) for right sided colon cancer.

methodsProspective, international multicentre pilot randomised phase II trial for patients with right colon adenocarcinoma, randomised 2:1 to robotic (RRHC) or laparoscopic (LRHC) surgery performed by accredited surgeons. Primary outcome was 90-day surgical morbidity measured using the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Standardised pathology reviews, patient reported quality of life and surgeon task load index data was captured.

resultsRRHC vs. LRHC surgery allocation was 19 vs. 10, mean operative time 3.8 vs. 3.1 h with no operative mortality, all had R0 resection, CME rate 53 vs. 50% and intact mesocolon 94 v 100%. CCI was significantly lower at 30 and 90 days after RRHC (median (Q1, Q3): 0 (0, 9) vs. 21 (21, 26); median difference: 21; 95% CI 9-26; p = 0.005 at 30 days; p = 0.008 at 90 days). No significant differences in pathological nor quality of life data was observed. Surgeons task load data tended to favour robotic procedures. Median follow-up was 6 months. Limited funding led to early study closure.

conclusionsRRHC improved short-term surgical morbidity and surgeon physical demand and performance whilst obtaining similar quality of life and pathological specimen quality compared to LRHC for right sided colon cancer, supporting the case for larger randomised trials.

trial registrationACTRN12620001378910.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaColectomyColonic NeoplasmsLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePilot ProjectsPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeColon cancerComprehensive complication indexLaparoscopic surgeryRandomised controlled trialRight hemicolectomyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID41372621
PMCPMC12971845

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.