ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Comparative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic anterior rectal resection for cM0 mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma: A 10-year retrospective analysis of patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past two decades, minimally invasive techniques have progressively replaced open surgery for mid-low rectal cancer. While randomized clinical trials (RCTs) supported this shift, they did not find a clear advantage for laparoscopic (LAR) or robotic anterior rectal resection (RAR). Given the challenges in conducting new RCTs with long-term follow-up, retrospective analyses from high-volume centers offer valuable real-world evidence. We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients with cM0 mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent LAR or RAR at Humanitas San Pio X Hospital, between January 2010 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was 5-year disease-free survival (DFS); secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), pathological results, perioperative recovery, and complications. Univariate analyses were performed to assess statistically significant differences between LAR and RAR using the Mann–Whitney U and Chi-Square tests; a multivariate analysis was then performed to assess the robustness of the results. The overall 5-year DFS was 77.8%, with rates of 74.2% for LAR and 81.7% for RAR; Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed no significant difference between groups. OS, MFS, RFS, R0 resection rates, and circumferential resection margin positivity were comparable. RAR was associated with faster postoperative recovery—earlier return of bowel function, lower postoperative day 1 pain scores, and reduced C-reactive protein levels—albeit with slightly longer operative times. Early and late complication rates, including low anterior resection syndrome, were similar. According to our results, RAR is a safe and effective alternative to LAR for mid-low rectal adenocarcinoma, achieving equivalent long-term oncological outcomes while offering enhanced short-term recovery benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41483303What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.