ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2017
[Robot-assisted surgery - Progress or expensive toy? : Matched-pair comparative analysis of robot-assisted cholecystectomy vs. laparoscopic cholecystectomy].
Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Obesity and Pancreatic Cancer: A Matched-Pair Survival Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- [Implementation of new technologies in the DRG system under economic aspects].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020Review
- Comparative Outcomes of Robotic Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Subtotal Cholecystectomy: A Retrospective Analysis of Surgical Efficacy and Postoperative Intervention.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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIM AND
methodsBy means of a matched-pair analysis comparing data obtained from laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RAC), the value of both methods as well as the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches were elucidated. The consideration was carried out by evaluation of postoperative surgical results, a cost analysis and a subjective survey of the patients using a questionnaire. Thus, from the 35 consecutive RAC, 35 (parallel) retrospectively matched pairs were established.
resultsPostoperative surgical results did not show any significant differences between LC and RAC. In the individual assessment by each patient, there were also no significant differences; however, there was a tendency towards the assessment of the RAC to be slightly worse. A striking difference was found with respect to the cost analysis at the time of surgery.
conclusionThe RAC operation alone is significantly more expensive compared to LC with respect to maintenance and acquisition costs. In addition, RAC can at present not be completely reimbursed under the current German diagnosis-related system. The postulated advantages of RAC comprise mainly the precise preparation within narrow confinements and the favorable ergonomic handling for the surgeon. The basic prerequisites are control of the costs and a reasonable reflection in the current reimbursement system.
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.