Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38528261›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024

The evidence behind robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Jae Hwan Choi, Abdul-Rahman Diab, Katherine Tsay, Davis Kuruvilla, Samer Ganam, Adham Saad, Salvatore Docimo, Joseph A Sujka, Christopher G DuCoin

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Da VinciSurgical endoscopy · 2026
    Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Water Under the Bridge: Ureteral Injury After Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jae Hwan ChoiDepartment of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4975-5140
Abdul-Rahman DiabDepartment of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Katherine TsayDepartment of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Davis KuruvillaDepartment of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Samer GanamDepartment of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Adham SaadDepartment of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Salvatore DocimoDepartment of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Joseph A SujkaDepartment of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Christopher G DuCoinDepartment of Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA. cducoin@usf.edu.
University of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite recent advancements, the advantage of robotic surgery over other traditional modalities still harbors academic inquiries. We seek to take a recently published high-profile narrative systematic review regarding robotic surgery and add meta-analytic tools to identify further benefits of robotic surgery.

methodsData from the published systematic review were extracted and meta-analysis were performed. A fixed-effect model was used when heterogeneity was not significant (Chi

resultsRobotic surgery had comparable overall complications compared to laparoscopic surgery (p = 0.85), which was significantly lower compared to open surgery (odds ratio 0.68, p = 0.005). Compared to laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery had fewer open conversions (risk difference - 0.0144, p = 0.03), shorter length of stay (mean difference - 0.23 days, p = 0.01), but longer operative time (mean difference 27.98 min, p < 0.00001). Compared to open surgery, robotic surgery had less estimated blood loss (mean difference - 286.8 mL, p = 0.0003) and shorter length of stay (mean difference - 1.69 days, p = 0.001) with longer operative time (mean difference 44.05 min, p = 0.03). For experienced robotic surgeons, there were less overall intraoperative complications (risk difference - 0.02, p = 0.02) and open conversions (risk difference - 0.03, p = 0.04), with equivalent operative duration (mean difference 23.32 min, p = 0.1) compared to more traditional modalities.

conclusionOur study suggests that compared to laparoscopy, robotic surgery may improve hospital length of stay and open conversion rates, with added benefits in experienced robotic surgeons showing lower overall intraoperative complications and comparable operative times.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresAbdomenConversion to Open SurgeryHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayOperative TimePelvisPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMeta-analysisMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic surgerySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38528261
OpenAlexW4393164542

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.