SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2016
Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Pooled it
- A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2017Pooled it
- Robotic Surgery in Gynecology: Balancing Clinical Benefit, Cost-Effectiveness, and Accessibility.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Hysterectomy Provides Higher Sentinel Node Detection and Lower Conversion Rates Compared to Laparoscopy in Endometrial Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Is robotic surgery beneficial for the treatment of endometrial cancer? A comparison with conventional laparoscopic surgery.Journal of Cancer · 2024Article
- Efficacy and prognosis of robotic surgery with sentinel node navigation surgery in endometrial cancer.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2023Article
- Robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for mediastinal lesions.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Trends in robotic surgery utilization across tertiary children's hospitals in the United States.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- National Trends in Robotic Pancreas Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Article
- Detailed cost of robotic-assisted surgery in the Australian public health sector: from implementation to a multi-specialty caseload.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Validity evidence for procedural competency in virtual reality robotic simulation, establishing a credible pass/fail standard for the vaginal cuff closure procedure.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: oncological outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a NSQIP Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2017Article
- Contributions of the Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group (JGOG) in Improving the Quality of Life in Women With Gynecological Malignancies.Current oncology reports · 2017Review
- Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare perioperative outcomes between robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of endometrial cancer by conducting a meta-analysis.
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE up to January 8, 2016. Studies clearly documenting a comparison between RAS and CLS for patients with endometrial cancer were included. The perioperative outcomes of interest included intraoperative visceral injuries, postoperative complications, operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, total lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were pooled with either a fixed-effects or a random-effects model.
resultsA total of 19 studies were included in the analysis, involving 3056 patients. The pooled analysis showed that RAS was associated with lower EBL (WMD -77.65; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -105.58 to -49.72), lower conversion rate (OR 0.29; 95 % CI 0.18-0.46), and shorter hospital stay (WMD -0.48; 95 % CI -0.70 to -0.26) compared to CLS. The incidence of intraoperative visceral injuries, operation time, transfusion rate, and TLNH showed no significant differences between RAS and CLS.
conclusionsRAS is a feasible and effective surgical approach that may be superior to CLS for the treatment of endometrial cancer, with lower EBL and lower conversion rate. Further prospective randomized trials are required to validate our findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.