ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2020
[Robotic surgery in Urology : New kids on the block].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Market potentials of robotic systems in medical science: analysis of the Avatera robotic system.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- [Robotics and intraoperative navigation].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
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
Minimally invasive surgery, which became an elementary part of urologic surgery at the beginning of the 1990s, is associated with clear advantages for patients such as increased cosmesis, decreased blood loss, less postoperative pain, and faster patient recovery. Increasing experience was associated with comparable operative outcomes to open surgery, and more recently better oncologic and functional results with minimally invasive surgical techniques as shown in large studies in the literature. Robotic surgery was introduced at the beginning of 2000 and has facilitated minimally invasive surgery. Robotic assisted laparoscopic operations (e.g., radical prostatectomy or partial nephrectomy) have evolved rapidly to become widely accepted procedures. However, robotic surgery was monopolized by one company, namely Intuitive Surgical which owns the majority of the patents in this field. The market and the interest were growing, but unfortunately the prices were rising and exceeded 2 million Euros. This reality has been the main obstacle for many clinics who wanted to adopt robotic surgery. In recent years, new companies have developed and patented alternative robotic surgical systems after earlier patents of Intuitive Surgical expired. Thus, real competition could start in the robotic market. In this article, we introduce these new robotic platforms for urologic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32785733What 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.