Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32785733›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2020

[Robotic surgery in Urology : New kids on the block].

A Gözen, J Rassweiler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Robotics and intraoperative navigation].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021
    Review
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

2 authors.

A GözenKlinik für Urologie, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Heidelberg Universität, Am Gesundbrunnen 20-26, 74078, Heilbronn, Deutschland. ali.goezen@slk-kliniken.de.
J RassweilerKlinik für Urologie, SLK Kliniken Heilbronn, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Heidelberg Universität, Am Gesundbrunnen 20-26, 74078, Heilbronn, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Robotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLaparoscopyMaleProstatectomyRoboticsUrologic Surgical ProceduresUrologyImaging, three-dimensionalLaparoscopyMinimal invasive surgeryProstatectomyVideo-assisted surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.