ReviewCureus2024
Comparative Analysis of Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Review.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Meta-analysis of single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy comparing operation time and postoperative pain.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Contemporary National Inpatient Trends in appendectomy utilization and operative approach in the United States, 2016-2022.Surgery open science · 2026Article
- Uptake of Robotic Appendectomy: A Single State Analysis.Annals of surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and robotic surgery in clinical medicine: progress, challenges, and future directions.Future science OA · 2025Review
- Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques in the Treatment of Appendicitis: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Global strategies for the diffusion of robotic surgery.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Appendectomy ranks among the most common surgical procedures. Laparoscopic appendectomy has become increasingly popular among certain surgeons. Even laparoscopic appendectomy is considered the gold standard; many surgical subspecialties have adopted robotic surgery in the past 10 years. The robotic system is recognized for enhancing stability, visualization, precision, and spatial flexibility. Surgeons can operate with enhanced dexterity, reduced tremors, three-dimensional visualization, up to 10 times magnification, and control over four arms thanks to improved ergonomics that allow them to sit at a customizable console. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the overall effects, such as intraoperative time, postoperative recovery, feasibility for surgeons, and cost-effectiveness, of robotic-assisted appendectomy and laparoscopic appendectomy through the available literature. It was found that both robotic and laparoscopic surgeries work well for appendectomy, but in some studies, it was found that robotic surgery comes with the perks of shorter hospital stays and quicker recovery, even though it is more expensive, and in some studies, no differences were observed in patient recovery postoperatively. Laparoscopic surgery is still a highly effective and commonly used method, with proven advantages over open appendectomy, despite taking longer for the procedure. We need more studies to fully understand the advantages and disadvantages of robotic surgery, especially when it comes to cost-effectiveness and wider health outcomes.
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.