SynthesisPloS one2018
Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 6 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
61 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Perioperative outcomes of remote robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a single-arm meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Time-series and thematic analyses of clinical utilities and operational issues in early clinical studies of the da Vinci surgical system.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications.BMC surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy in colon cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic Appendicectomy: A review of feasibility.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2023Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus robotic abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- RoLaCaRT-1: pilot randomised phase II study of robotic vs laparoscopic hemicolectomy for right colon cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- Robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic incisional hernia repair following oncologic surgery: short- and long-term outcomes of a randomized controlled trial.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Trial
- Integrating robotic donor nephrectomy into contemporary living donor programmes: Evidence and practical considerations.World journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- Robot-assistedWorld journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- White paper on effective preacquisition evaluation of soft tissue robotic surgery platforms for healthcare institutions.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Bridging perception and reality: understanding Chinese women's behavioral intentions toward robot-assisted gynecologic surgery.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Review
- Annual nationwide cost estimation and short-term outcomes after para-aortic lymph node dissection for gynecologic malignancies according to surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, and robotic).Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Design of Automatic Tool Replacement Mechanism for Laparoscopic Surgical Robot Arm for Solo Surgery.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2025Article
- Economic Evaluations of Robotic-Assisted Surgery: Methods, Challenges and Opportunities.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Review
- Health technology assessment of surgical robots: a mini-review of a rapidly evolving field.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Beyond the Operating Room: A Narrative Review of Enhanced Recovery Strategies in Colorectal Surgery.Cureus · 2024Review
- Examining surgeon stress in robotic and laparoscopic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceThis review provides a comprehensive comparison of treatment outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) based on randomly-controlled trials (RCTs).
objectivesWe employed RCTs to provide a systematic review that will enable the relevant community to weigh the effectiveness and efficacy of surgical robotics in controversial fields on surgical procedures both overall and on each individual surgical procedure. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A search was conducted for RCTs in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 1981 to 2016. Among a total of 1,517 articles, 27 clinical reports with a mean sample size of 65 patients per report (32.7 patients who underwent RLS and 32.5 who underwent CLS), met the inclusion criteria.
findingsCLS shows significant advantages in total operative time, net operative time, total complication rate, and operative cost (p < 0.05 in all cases), whereas the estimated blood loss was less in RLS (p < 0.05). As subgroup analyses, conversion rate on colectomy and length of hospital stay on hysterectomy statistically favors RLS (p < 0.05).
conclusionsDespite higher operative cost, RLS does not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favorable with CLS.
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.