ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2012
Robot-assisted surgery:--impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ergonomic analysis of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2014Trial
- Precision at scale: Machine learning revolutionizing laparoscopic surgery.World journal of clinical oncology · 2024Article
- Managing novel orally administered anticoagulants in patients undergoing urogynaecological surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2016Review
- Development of an arm support system to improve ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery: study design and provisional results.Surgical endoscopy · 2015Article
- Modifications of transaxillary approach in endoscopic da Vinci-assisted thyroid and parathyroid gland surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2015Article
- FLS tasks can be used as an ergonomic discriminator between laparoscopic and robotic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The da Vinci Surgical System dominates robotic surgery, as the only robotic device to have FDA approval in gynaecology. The benefits of robot-assisted surgery include decreased length of stay, decreased blood loss and analgesic requirements. Ergonomic improvements allow the surgeon to operate with less risk of neck and back injury. Unfortunately the initial economic impact of purchasing and maintaining a robot are great but must be balanced with the potential savings from reduced length of stay and earlier return to normal activity. This review looks at the uses for the robot in both gynaecology and urogynaecology, assessing the efficacy of this modality compared to both straight stick (laparoscopy) and open procedures. We assess the benefits to both patient and surgeon from the available literature. Within the current economic environment we appraise the costs associated with the robot.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22638668What 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.