ReviewRambam Maimonides medical journal2017
Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology-The Future Is Here.
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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Designing Chinese hospital emergency departments to leverage artificial intelligence-a systematic literature review on the challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in medical technology · 2024Pooled it
- Is Robotic-Assisted Surgery Safe in the Elderly Population? An Analysis of Gynecologic Procedures in Patients ≥ 65 Years Old.Annals of surgical oncology · 2019Trial
- Global research landscape of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: a bibliometric analysis (2005-2025).Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Advancements and outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery in pediatric patients: a multicenter analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Advantages of Robotic Surgery for Patients of Reproductive Age with Endometrial Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- SonoBox: development of a robotic ultrasound tomograph for the ultrasound diagnosis of paediatric forearm fractures.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024Article
- Robotic Surgery: The Future of Gynaecology.Cureus · 2022Review
- Tips and Details for Successful Robotic Myomectomy: Single-Center Experience with the First 125 Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
- Pediatric and adolescent gynecology: Treatment perspectives in minimally invasive surgery.Pediatric reports · 2019Article
- Robotic-Assisted Surgery for the Treatment of Breast and Cervical Cancers.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.