ReviewCureus2021
Surgical and Patient Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of The Robotic Stereotactic Assistance for intracerebral hemorrhage; A systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in Surgically Complex Cases: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Abdominal wall blocks in robotic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer are associated with a modest reduction in the frequency of patients receiving post-operative intravenous opioids.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2026Article
- Current status of robot-assisted surgery implementation in endometriosis centers: an international multicentric cross-sectional study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Hysterectomy for Benign Gynecologic Disease: A Comparative Study of Articulating Laparoscopic Instruments and Robot-Assisted Surgery in Korea and Taiwan.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Surgical outcomes of robotic hysterectomy for large uterus weighing more than 1000 g: a retrospective study from a high-volume center.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Robotic Hysterectomy Using an Indigenous Robotic System: A Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Robotic-assisted surgery in benign gynecology: single-center experience with 106 patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Charting Proficiency: The Learning Curve in Robotic Hysterectomy for Large Uteri Exceeding 1000 g.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynaecology: An Evolving Assistive Technology.Surgical innovation · 2024Review
- Effect of Uterine Weight on the Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Hysterectomy in Benign Indications.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Surgical Frontiers: A Comparative Review of Robotics Versus Laparoscopy in Gynecological Interventions.Cureus · 2023Review
- Comparison of surgical outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy in gynecologic benign disease: a single-center cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of postoperative analgesia use between robotic and laparoscopic total hysterectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Robotics-assisted surgery in gynecology: A single-center experience with the Hugo™ RAS system in India.Women's health (London, England)Article
- Uterine Weight and Perioperative Morbidity in Robotic-Assisted versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
- Acute outcomes with robotic versus laparoscopic and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: a retrospective cohort study from Alberta, Canada.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hysterectomy is a commonly performed gynecologic surgery that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. However, the evolution of the surgical approach, from open to minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), has substantially improved patient outcomes by reducing perioperative complications, pain, and length of hospitalization. The evident advantages and the approval of the da Vinci Surgical System by the Food and Drug Administration led to the exponential rise in the use of MIGS. In particular, robotic hysterectomy (RH) witnessed unparalleled popularity compared to other MIGS despite the lack of strong evidence demonstrating its superiority. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to evaluate and compare various patient and surgical outcomes of RH with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (CLH), including operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, overall complications, survival, and cost. Overall, the outcomes were comparable between RH and CLH except concerning cost. RH is significantly more expensive than CLH due to the higher costs of robotic equipment, including disposable instruments, equipment maintenance, and sterilization. Although RH demonstrated comparable outcomes and higher costs, its technical advantages such as improved ergonomics, three-dimensional view, a wider range of wristed mobility, mechanical lifting of robot's hand, and greater stability might benefit patient subsets (e.g., obesity, large uterine weights >750 g). Therefore, large and multicentered randomized control trials are imperative to determine the most effective surgical approach between RH and other MIGS for different patient subsets.
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.