ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2020
Implementation of robotic gynecological surgery in a German University Hospital: patient safety after 110 procedures.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-port robotic surgery in gynecology: first experience in German-speaking countries using the Da Vinci SP system in benign andneoplastic diseases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Implementing Robotic Gynecologic Surgery: Early Outcomes From a Tertiary Care Hospital in Portugal.Cureus · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of da VinciMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- How does robotic surgery affect gynecology patient care?Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Review
- The Role of Robotics in Meeting Institutional Goals: A Unified Strategy to Facilitate Program Excellence.International neurourology journal · 2024Article
- The role of minimally invasive surgery in gynaecological cancer: an overview of current trends.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRobotic surgery represents the latest development in the field of minimally invasive surgery and offers many technical advantages. Despite the higher costs, this novel approach has been applied increasingly in gynecological surgery. Regarding the implementation of a new operative method; however, the most important factor to be aware of is patient safety. In this study, we describe our experience in implementing robotic surgery in a German University Hospital focusing on patient safety after 110 procedures.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 110 consecutive robotic procedures performed in the University Hospital of Würzburg between June 2017 and September 2019. During this time, 37 patients were treated for benign general gynecological conditions, 27 patients for gynecological malignancies, and 46 patients for urogynecological conditions. We evaluated patient safety through standardized assessment of intra- and postoperative complications, which were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.
resultsNo complications were recorded in 90 (81.8%) operations. We observed Clavien-Dindo grade I complications in 8 (7.3%) cases, grade II complications in 5 (4.5%) cases, grade IIIa complications in 1 case (0.9%), and grade IIIb complications in 6 (5.5%) cases. No conversion to laparotomy or blood transfusion was needed.
conclusionRobotic surgery could be implemented for complex gynecological operations without relevant problems and was accompanied by low complication rates.
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.