SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2022
Comparison of Robotic-Assisted vs. Conventional Laparoscopy for Para-aortic Lymphadenectomy in Gynecological Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A case of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for atypical internal iliac vein inflow: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Haptic and Palpation Sensing for Robotic Surgery: Engineering Perspectives on Design and Integration.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Palpation sensing for robotic-assisted surgery.Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Annual nationwide cost estimation and short-term outcomes after para-aortic lymph node dissection for gynecologic malignancies according to surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, and robotic).Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic-assisted surgery is one of the novel minimally invasive surgical techniques for the treatment of gynecological malignancies. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopy for para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) in patients with gynecological malignancies. Methods: An electronic search in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar databases was performed for articles, published up to 01 Results: A total of nine studies (7 non-RCTs and 2 RCTs) involving 914 participants were included. Of them, 332 patients underwent robotic laparoscopy (robotic group) and 582-conventional laparoscopy (conventional laparoscopy group). A significant decrease in TBL (MD = -149.1; 95% CI: -218.4 to -79.91) [ml] was observed in the robotic group as compared to the conventional laparoscopy group. However, no significant difference was noted for OT, CR, and LOS in the overall findings. Further subgroup analysis showed that the robotic group had a lower OT in mixed histological populations and studies reporting on the extraperitoneal approach. The lower chance of TBL was observed in mixed histological populations and studies involving extraperitoneal approach, Caucasian population, and non-RCTs design. Conclusions: Robotic laparoscopy has a significant advantage over the conventional laparoscopy approach for PAL in gynecological malignancies. Further prospective observational studies embedded with a large sample size are needed to validate our findings.
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.