Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25380708›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2015

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery.

Amir Szold, Roberto Bergamaschi, Ivo Broeders, Jenny Dankelman, Antonello Forgione, Thomas Langø, Andreas Melzer, Yoav Mintz, Salvador Morales-Conde, Michael Rhodes and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05611840 (Randomized Trial Comparing One-stage Robotic Approach Versus Two-stage Endo-laparoscopic Approach for Difficult Choledocholithiasis), which is not on this map. Cited by 58 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT05611840 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Trial Comparing One-stage Robotic Approach Versus Two-stage Endo-laparoscopic Approach for Difficult Choledocholithiasis (REAL Trial)

TypeinterventionalSponsorChinese University of Hong KongRan2023 to 2025Enrolled90ConditionsCholedocholithiasisArmsRobotic surgery, Endo-laparoscopic surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. European Society of Coloproctology guideline on training in robotic colorectal surgery (2024).Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2016
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Advances in minimally invasive liver surgery.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

14 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.

Amir SzoldTechnology Committee, EAES, Assia Medical Group, P.O. Box 58048, Tel Aviv, 61580, Israel, amikisz@gmail.com.
Roberto Bergamaschi
Ivo Broeders
Jenny Dankelman
Antonello Forgione
Thomas Langø
Andreas Melzer
Yoav Mintz
Salvador Morales-Conde
Michael Rhodes
Richard Satava
Chung-Ngai Tang
Ramon Vilallonga
European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons
Assuta Medical Center · ILDelft University of Technology · NLHadassah Medical Center · ILHospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío · ESMeander Medisch Centrum · NLNinewells Hospital · GBPamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital · CNSeattle University · USSINTEF · NOState University of New York · USUniversity of East Anglia · GBVall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Indexed as

RoboticsCholecystectomyConversion to Open SurgeryCost-Benefit AnalysisEndoscopyEuropeHepatectomyHumansLaparoscopyPancreatectomySocieties, Medical

Identifiers

PMID25380708
OpenAlexW2171468379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.