SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2020
Self-reported prevalence of injury and discomfort experienced by surgeons performing traditional and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis demonstrating the value of RALS for surgeons.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of a full clinical workday on surgical performance in simulated laparoscopy: a controlled crossover trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Critical analysis on the assessment of ergonomics in robotic surgery: A scoping review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- A calculator for musculoskeletal injuries prediction in surgeons: a machine learning approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Perceived comfort and tool usability during robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic surgery: a survey study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe negative impact of traditional laparoscopic surgery (TLS) on surgeons has been well-established. Prevalence rates of discomfort and injury between 73% and 90% are regularly cited to support this, with robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) often being presented as the solution. The purpose of this study was to systematically review pain studies of TLS and RALS surgeons, to consider the difference in the reported strain in general and concerning specific sites of the body.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched in October 2019. The resulting articles were screened to ensure the full text was available in English, original data were presented, the study contained pain statistics for TLS or RALS, and the study had a long-term rather than an intra-operative focus. Quality was assessed using the SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE (SURGE). Results from studies were analyzed in two stages for TLS and RALS according to each anatomic region.
resultsA total of 1354 papers were found, from which 28 papers were chosen for inclusion. The average quality score of the included articles was 14.8. The risk ratio of experiencing symptoms related to TLS in comparison to RALS was 1.29; however, this was not significant. Discomfort was significantly more likely to be experienced in the back, elbows, and wrists/hands for those practicing TLS in comparison with RALS. The regions associated with the highest risk of injury for TLS and RALS were the back and neck, respectively.
conclusionsThere is limited evidence in this study for the possibility that RALS is ergonomically more beneficial for the surgeon in comparison with TLS. Further analysis would be improved with the publication of larger, high-quality, homogenous studies, especially concerning injuries experienced by RALS surgeons, to overcome the limitations of heterogeneity and bias.
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.