ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Robotic approaches may offer benefit in colorectal procedures, more controversial in other areas: a review of 168,248 cases.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 7 of them syntheses 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic vs Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in Patients with BMI > 40 kg/mObesity surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic bariatric surgery for the obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Robotic versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Obesity surgery · 2017Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus open approach for pancreaticoduodenectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Pooled it
- Robotic versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Evaluation of surgical stress after colorectal interventions: a multicenter randomized clinical trial of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Interim analysis of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: results from the ESSIMIC trial.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
- Diverticular disease complicated by colovesical and colovaginal fistulas: not so complex robotically.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic vs. robotic colectomy for left-sided diverticulitis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Short-term outcomes and costs analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a retrospective single-center analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer: A Narrative Review and Description of the Technique.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Update on Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive?Obesity surgery · 2020Article
- Intelligent, Autonomous Machines in Surgery.The Journal of surgical research · 2020Article
- Robot-assisted hiatal hernia repair demonstrates favorable short-term outcomes compared to laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Article
- Robotic colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is feasible with no operative conversions during the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon developing a robotics program.Journal of robotic surgery · 2019Article
- Could ICG-aided robotic cholecystectomy reduce the rate of open conversion reported with laparoscopic approach? A head to head comparison of the largest single institution studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhile the penetrance of robotic surgery into field of urology and gynecology has been significant, general surgeons have been slower adopters. We sought to compare laparoscopy and RAS among five different general surgical procedures with various penetrance of MIS.
methodsFollowing IRB approval, the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System administrative data were used to identify five common laparoscopic general surgery procedures: cholecystectomy, colectomy, esophageal fundoplication (EF), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between 2008 and 2012. ICD-9 codes were used to select laparoscopic versus robotic procedures. Procedures were compared based on any complication and hospital length of stay (HLOS). Following descriptive analysis, propensity score analysis was used to estimate the population average differences between patients who underwent robotic-assisted and laparoscopic procedures.
resultsThere were 1458 patients who had undergone robotic-assisted surgery and 166,790 patients who had undergone laparoscopic surgery among the five procedures between 2008 and 2012. Of the 1458 robotic cases, 186 were cholecystectomy, 307 were RYGB, 118 were SG, 288 were EF, and 559 were colectomy. Initial univariate analysis showed a significantly higher rate of overall complications and HLOS in the laparoscopic group compared to the robotic-assisted group. Laparoscopic colectomy had a significantly higher rate of complications and longer length of stay compared to robotic approaches. No difference in complications or HLOS was seen in the cholecystectomy group. Following propensity score analysis, patients who had undergone robotic-assisted colectomy had significantly lower rate of complications compared to those who underwent conventional laparoscopic procedure (p value = 0.0022). In addition, patients who underwent robotic-assisted SG had on average 1.22 days longer HLOS (p value = 0.0037).
conclusionRobotic approaches may facilitate safer adoption of minimally invasive approaches in areas where penetrance of conventional laparoscopy is low, such as in colorectal surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26139489What 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.