Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28467761›Full record

ReviewRambam Maimonides medical journal2017

Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology-The Future Is Here.

Roy Lauterbach, Emad Matanes, Lior Lowenstein

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Rambam Maimonides medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Robotic-Assisted Surgery for the Treatment of Breast and Cervical Cancers.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Roy LauterbachDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel; and Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Emad MatanesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel; and Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Lior LowensteinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel; and Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology · ILRambam Health Care Campus · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The authors present a systematic review of randomized and observational, retrospective and prospective studies to compare between robotic surgery as opposed to laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal surgery for the treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications. The comparison focuses on operative times, surgical outcomes, and surgical complications associated with the various surgical techniques. PubMed was the main search engine utilized in search of study data. The review included studies of various designs that included at least 25 women who had undergone robotic gynecologic surgery. Fifty-five studies (42 comparative and 13 non-comparative) met eligibility criteria. After careful analysis, we found that robotic surgery was consistently connected to shorter post-surgical hospitalization when compared to open surgery, a difference less significant when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Also, it seems that robotic surgery is highly feasible in gynecology. There are quite a few inconsistencies regarding operative times and estimated blood loss between the different approaches, though in the majority of studies estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic surgery group. The high variance in operative times resulted from the difference in surgeon's experience. The decision whether robotic surgery should become mainstream in gynecological surgery or remain another surgical technique in the gynecological surgeon's toolbox requires quite a few more randomized controlled clinical trials. In any case, in order to bring robotic surgery down to the front row of surgery, training surgeons is by far the most important goal for the next few years.

Identifiers

PMID28467761
PMCPMC5415365
OpenAlexW2609122573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.