Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35526260›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2023

Robotic surgery in comparison to the open and laparoscopic approaches in the field of urology: a systematic review.

Afra Zahid, Muhammad Ayyan, Minaam Farooq, Huzaifa Ahmad Cheema, Abia Shahid, Faiza Naeem, Muhammad Abdullah Ilyas, Shehreen Sohail

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. IDEAL-compliant implementation of the DexterInnovative surgical sciences · 2025
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Afra ZahidDepartment of Internal Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
Muhammad AyyanDepartment of Internal Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan. iamayyan77@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4023-7956
Minaam FarooqDepartment of Internal Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
Huzaifa Ahmad CheemaDepartment of Internal Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
Abia ShahidDepartment of Internal Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
Faiza NaeemDepartment of Internal Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
Muhammad Abdullah IlyasDepartment of Internal Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan.
Shehreen SohailDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
King Edward Medical University · PKUniversity of Central Punjab · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To establish the feasibility of robotic surgical procedures in urology in terms of the applications, merits, and demerits as well as the postoperative and oncological outcomes while comparing it with the conventional approaches. A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort studies on Robot-Assisted urological surgical procedures in comparison with the conventional methods. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the revised Cochrane "Risk of Bias" tool. A qualitative narrative synthesis of the data extracted from the studies was performed and presented in tabulated form. After screening, 39 studies were included in our review (7 Randomized Controlled Trials and 32 Cohort studies). Robot-Assisted Prostatectomy appears to be associated with lower estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay. For Robot-Assisted Cystectomy, the results suggest longer operative time and fewer complications. Robot-Assisted Radical Nephrectomy was found to be associated with fewer perioperative complications and longer mean operative time while Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy was associated with less positive surgical margins and reduced need for postoperative analgesia. The mean operative time was longer while the length of stay was shorter for the robotic approach in inguinal lymphadenectomy and ureteral reimplantation. The feasibility of Robot-Assisted surgery varied for different outcome measures as well as for different procedures. Some common advantages were a shorter length of stay, lesser blood loss, and fewer complications while the drawbacks included longer operative time.Study protocol PROSPERO database (Registration Number: CRD42021256623).

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrologyHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeProstatectomyRobot-assisted surgeryRobotic surgical proceduresSystematic reviewUrology

Identifiers

PMID35526260
OpenAlexW4229334678

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.