Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery

Table 4 Original studies reporting female urological function

Ref.	Females assessed independently of males	Functional scores applied	Control group	No. of cases examining female urological function	Follow up in months	Outcome summary
Morelli et al[30]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs lap	Not available	1, 6, 12	No difference between the pre- and post-operative scores in both groups
Luca et al[6]	Yes	Yes	No control group	36	1, 6, 12	Worse female urological function at 1 mo with full recovery by 12 mo in both groups
Kim et al[31]	No	Yes	Robot vs lap	30 rob vs 39 lap	1, 3, 6, 12	As in Table 3
Stănciulea et al[37]	No	Yes	No control group	78	Once b/n 6 and 12	As in Table 3
Hellan et al[34]	No	No	No control group	39	Median f/u 13 mo	As in Table 3
Park et al[39]	No	No	No control group	30	Not stated	As in Table 3
Cho et al[35]	No	No	Robot vs lap	278 vs 278	1	As in Table 3

This table describes the same study characteristics included in Table 3 but for female instead of male patients. Robot: Robotic; lap: Laparoscopic; f/u: Follow up.