Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29442240›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2018

Review of emerging surgical robotic technology.

Brian S Peters, Priscila R Armijo, Crystal Krause, Songita A Choudhury, Dmitry Oleynikov

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06362070 (Comparison of Outcomes of Multiple Platforms for Assisted Robotic - Gastrectomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 231 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
231citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06362070 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Outcomes of Multiple Platforms for Assisted Robotic - Gastrectomy (COMPAR-G) in Gastric Cancer Patient.

TypeinterventionalSponsorAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata VeronaRan2024 to 2025Enrolled75ConditionsGastric Cancer, Gastrointestinal Cancer, Neoplasms, Gastric Diffuse AdenocarcinomaArmsDaVinci® Surgical System, Hugo™ RAS System, Versius® Robotic Surgery System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

231 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

171 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Brian S PetersUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, 986245 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6245, USA.
Priscila R ArmijoUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, 986245 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6245, USA.
Crystal KrauseUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, 986245 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6245, USA.
Songita A ChoudhuryUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, 986245 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6245, USA.
Dmitry OleynikovUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, 986245 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6245, USA. doleynik@unmc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0656-6596

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of laparoscopic and robotic procedures has increased in general surgery. Minimally invasive robotic surgery has made tremendous progress in a relatively short period of time, realizing improvements for both the patient and surgeon. This has led to an increase in the use and development of robotic devices and platforms for general surgery. The purpose of this review is to explore current and emerging surgical robotic technologies in a growing and dynamic environment of research and development.

methodsThis review explores medical and surgical robotic endoscopic surgery and peripheral technologies currently available or in development. The devices discussed here are specific to general surgery, including laparoscopy, colonoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, and thoracoscopy. Benefits and limitations of each technology were identified and applicable future directions were described.

resultsA number of FDA-approved devices and platforms for robotic surgery were reviewed, including the da Vinci Surgical System, Sensei X Robotic Catheter System, FreeHand 1.2, invendoscopy E200 system, Flex® Robotic System, Senhance, ARES, the Single-Port Instrument Delivery Extended Research (SPIDER), and the NeoGuide Colonoscope. Additionally, platforms were reviewed which have not yet obtained FDA approval including MiroSurge, ViaCath System, SPORT™ Surgical System, SurgiBot, Versius Robotic System, Master and Slave Transluminal Endoscopic Robot, Verb Surgical, Miniature In Vivo Robot, and the Einstein Surgical Robot.

conclusionsThe use and demand for robotic medical and surgical platforms is increasing and new technologies are continually being developed. New technologies are increasingly implemented to improve on the capabilities of previously established systems. Future studies are needed to further evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each robotic surgical device and platform in the operating suite.

Indexed as

HumansLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgery, Computer-AssistedUser-Computer InterfaceEndoscopyLaparoscopyRobotic-assisted surgeryRobotic surgerySurgical robotics

Identifiers

PMID29442240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.