ReviewCurrent urology reports2016
Complications of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Their Management.
Review in Current urology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of guided instrument insertion during laparoscopy: a randomized study with novices in an optical box trainer.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Trial
- Objective assessment of stress and surgical performance during simulated robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Localized Muscular Fatigue in Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: Predictive Modeling Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Correlation Study and Predictive Modelling of Ergonomic Parameters in Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Applying artificial intelligence on EDA sensor data to predict stress on minimally invasive robotic-assisted surgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2024Article
- Complications of renal interventions: a pictorial review of CT findings.Insights into imaging · 2021Review
- Peri-Surgical Inflammatory Profile Associated with Mini-Invasive or Standard Open Lumbar Interbody Fusion Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Minimally Invasive vs. Open Hepatectomy: a Comparative Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2016Article
- Short-term Outcome of Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgery for Gynecological Malignancies: A Single-center Experience.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
- System for assistance in ultrasound-guided percutaneous hepatic interventions using augmented reality: First steps.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
- Laparoscopic Insertion of Various Shaped Trocars in a Porcine Model.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery, including both traditional laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic approaches, has increasingly become the standard of care for urologic abdominal and pelvic surgery. This is a comprehensive review of the contemporary literature regarding complications of laparoscopic and robotic urologic surgery. The review highlights pertinent studies with the goal of providing the minimally invasive urologic surgeon with an up-to-date overview of general and procedure-specific complications and their management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27075019What 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.