SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2024
Role of robot-assisted laparoscopy in deep infiltrating endometriosis with bowel involvement: a systematic review and application of the IDEAL framework.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopy for colorectal endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic versus open (or laparoscopic) hysterectomy: a comprehensive review of clinical, surgical, and economic outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for deep infiltrative endometriosis of the bowel: a propensity-matched analysis of US-based hospitals.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of Minimally Invasive Surgery on Quality of Life and Infertility in Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Current status of robot-assisted surgery implementation in endometriosis centers: an international multicentric cross-sectional study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- The Evidence-Based Medicine Management of Endometriosis Should Be Updated for the Limitations of Trial Evidence, the Multivariability of Decisions, Collective Experience, Heuristics, and Bayesian Thinking.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis review aims to evaluate the feasibility of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) as an alternative to standard laparoscopic surgery (SLS) for the treatment of bowel deep-infiltrative endometriosis. Additionally, it aims to provide guidance for future study design, by gaining insight into the current state of research, in accordance with the IDEAL framework.
methodA systematic review was conducted to identify relevant studies on RALS for bowel deep infiltrating endometriosis in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases up to August 2023 and reported in keeping with PRISMA guidelines. The study was registered with PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022308611
resultsEleven primary studies were identified, encompassing 364 RALS patients and 83 SLS patients, from which surgical details, operative and postoperative outcomes were extracted. In the RALS group, mean operating time was longer (235 ± 112 min) than in the standard laparoscopy group (171 ± 76 min) (p < 0.01). Patients in the RALS group experienced a shorter hospital stay (5.3 ± 3.5 days vs. 7.3 ± 4.1 days) (p < 0.01), and appeared to have fewer postoperative complications compared to standard laparoscopy. Research evidence for RALS in bowel DE is at an IDEAL Stage 2B of development.
conclusionRALS is a safe and feasible alternative to standard laparoscopy for bowel endometriosis treatment, with a shorter overall length of stay despite longer operating times. Further robust randomized trials recommended to delineate other potential advantages of RALS.
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.