Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38607386›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2024

Intraoperative image-guidance during robotic surgery: is there clinical evidence of enhanced patient outcomes?

Stefano Tappero, Giuseppe Fallara, Francesco Chierigo, Andrea Micalef, Francesca Ambrosini, Raquel Diaz, Andrea Dorotei, Edoardo Pompeo, Alessia Limena, Carlo Andrea Bravi and 6 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A clinically and technologically practicable navigation system for robotic sacrocolpopexy.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

16 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Stefano TapperoDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe FallaraDepartment of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Francesco ChierigoDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Andrea MicalefDepartment of General Surgery, Luigi Sacco University Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Francesca AmbrosiniDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Raquel DiazDepartment of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Andrea DoroteiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Edoardo PompeoNeurosurgery and Gamma Knife Radiosurgery Unit, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Alessia LimenaInfertility Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Carlo Andrea BraviDepartment of Urology, Northampton General Hospital, Northampton, UK.
Mattia LongoniUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Mattia Luca PiccinelliDepartment of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Francesco BarlettaUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Luigi AlbanoNeurosurgery and Gamma Knife Radiosurgery Unit, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
Elio MazzoneUnit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Paolo Dell'OglioDepartment of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy. paolo.delloglio@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2771-2919
University of Milan · ITVita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda · ITIRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele · ITHumanitas University · ITLeiden University Medical Center · NLOspedale Policlinico San Martino · ITRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Genoa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo date, the benefit of image guidance during robot-assisted surgery (IGS) is an object of debate. The current study aims to address the quality of the contemporary body of literature concerning IGS in robotic surgery throughout different surgical specialties.

methodsA systematic review of all English-language articles on IGS, from January 2013 to March 2023, was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane library's Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases. Comparative studies that tested performance of IGS vs control were included for the quantitative synthesis, which addressed outcomes analyzed in at least three studies: operative time, length of stay, blood loss, surgical margins, complications, number of nodal retrievals, metastatic nodes, ischemia time, and renal function loss. Bias-corrected ratio of means (ROM) and bias-corrected odds ratio (OR) compared continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Subgroup analyses according to guidance type (i.e., 3D virtual reality vs ultrasound vs near-infrared fluoresce) were performed.

resultsTwenty-nine studies, based on 11 surgical procedures of three specialties (general surgery, gynecology, urology), were included in the quantitative synthesis. IGS was associated with 12% reduction in length of stay (ROM 0.88; p = 0.03) and 13% reduction in blood loss (ROM 0.87; p = 0.03) but did not affect operative time (ROM 1.00; p = 0.9), or complications (OR 0.93; p = 0.4). IGS was associated with an estimated 44% increase in mean number of removed nodes (ROM 1.44; p < 0.001), and a significantly higher rate of metastatic nodal disease (OR 1.82; p < 0.001), as well as a significantly lower rate of positive surgical margins (OR 0.62; p < 0.001). In nephron sparing surgery, IGS significantly decreased renal function loss (ROM 0.37; p = 0.002).

conclusionsRobot-assisted surgery benefits from image guidance, especially in terms of pathologic outcomes, namely higher detection of metastatic nodes and lower surgical margins. Moreover, IGS enhances renal function preservation and lowers surgical blood loss.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresHumansIntraoperative PeriodTreatment Outcome3D modelsAugmented realityFluorescenceIntraoperative guidanceRobotic surgeryTracersUltrasoundVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID38607386
OpenAlexW4394753988

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.