ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2019
[Evidence for robotic surgery in oncological visceral surgery].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- [Robots in visceral and thoracic surgery-Quo vadis?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Development of artificial intelligence technology in diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Review
- [Evidence for robotics in oncological pancreatic surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021Review
- Case Report: Successful DaVinci-Assisted Major Liver Resection for Alveolar Echinococcosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The superiority of minimally invasive operative methods compared to open surgery with respect to various parameters of short-term outcome with adequate oncological long-term results has already been confirmed for many tumor entities in high-quality studies. The continuously expanding robotic surgery offers certain additional benefits in minimally invasive oncological visceral surgery, such as a high-resolution stable 3‑dimensional view, optimal freedom of movement in situ, elimination of natural tremor and better ergonomics. This article evaluates whether these postulated advantages are reflected in an improvement of the short-term perioperative and long-term oncological results compared to conventional minimally invasive surgery in oncological visceral surgery (rectum, colon, stomach, esophagus, pancreas, liver) according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. With the exception of colorectal surgery, there are currently no randomized controlled studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery in oncological visceral surgery. There is still a clear imbalance between the exponentially expanding application of robotic surgery and the existing lack of high-quality evidence. Further randomized controlled clinical trials urgently need to be performed especially considering the great technological development potential of robotic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30778607What 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.