Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39042305›Full record

SynthesisObesity surgery2024

Comparing the Efficacy of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Shuai Zhao, Yayan Fu, Jiajie Zhou, Longhe Sun, Ruiqi Li, Zhen Tian, Yifan Cheng, Jie Wang, Wei Wang, Daorong Wang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

10 authors.

Shuai ZhaoClinical Teaching Hospital of Medical School, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Nanjing University, Yangzhou, China.
Yayan FuNorthern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Jiajie ZhouClinical Teaching Hospital of Medical School, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Nanjing University, Yangzhou, China.
Longhe SunNorthern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Ruiqi LiClinical Teaching Hospital of Medical School, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Nanjing University, Yangzhou, China.
Zhen TianClinical Teaching Hospital of Medical School, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Nanjing University, Yangzhou, China.
Yifan ChengClinical Teaching Hospital of Medical School, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Nanjing University, Yangzhou, China.
Jie WangNorthern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Wei Wang *Department of General Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Yangzhou, China. wangwei815828@163.com.
Daorong Wang *Clinical Teaching Hospital of Medical School, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital, Nanjing University, Yangzhou, China. wdaorong666@sina.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1642-0889

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China NO.82373014Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province SJCX24_2342
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has emerged as the predominant metabolic bariatric surgery. With a growing number of studies evaluating the feasibility of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG), it becomes imperative to ascertain whether the outcomes of both techniques are comparable. This study endeavors to synthesize existing evidence and juxtapose the surgical outcomes of LSG and RSG.

methodsWe collected articles comparing LSG and RSG published between 2011 and 2024. The compiled data included author names, study duration, sample size, average age, gender distribution, geographical location, preoperative body mass index (BMI), bougie diameter, duration of hospitalization, surgical duration, readmission rates, conversion rates, costs, postoperative percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL), postoperative BMI, mortality rates, and complications.

resultsWe incorporated 21 articles. Both the RSG and LSG cohorts exhibited comparable rates of readmission, conversion, mortality, and incidence of complications (p > 0.05). Moreover, the efficacy of weight loss was similar between RSG and LSG. Nonetheless, RSG was linked to longer operative duration (WMD, -27.50 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], -28.82 to -26.18; p < 0.0001), prolonged hospitalization (WMD, -0.15 days; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.04; p = 0.006), and elevated expenses (WMD, -5830.9 dollars; 95% CI, -8075.98 to -3585.81; p < 0.0001).

conclusionsWhile both RSG and LSG demonstrated positive postoperative clinical outcomes, RSG patients experienced extended hospital stays, longer operative times, and increased hospitalization costs compared to LSG patients. Using the robotic platform for sleeve gastrectomy (SG) in patients with obesity did not appear to offer any clear benefits.

Indexed as

GastrectomyLaparoscopyObesity, MorbidRobotic Surgical ProceduresWeight LossBariatric SurgeryBody Mass IndexHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeBariatric surgeryLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomyMeta-analysisObesityRobotic sleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID39042305

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.