ReviewWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2024
Emergency robotic surgery: the experience of a single center and review of the literature.
Review in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic hepatectomy for benign liver disease: single-centre consecutive series and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive and open approaches.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic surgery in colorectal emergencies: a systematic review of current evidence.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and feasibility of robotic surgery in acute care setting: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- An Emergency Robotic Programme for Acute Complicated Diverticulitis: A Tertiary Centre Experience.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026Article
- Improving cost-efficiency in port-site fascial closure: a novel Veress-needle technique and a comprehensive literature review.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB): a propensity score-matched comparative study of perioperative outcomes in 200 patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in emergency surgery: a scoping review within the artificial intelligence in emergency and trauma surgery (ARIES) project.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2026Article
- A standardized robot-assisted technique for giant paraesophageal hernia repair: the relationship between surgical details and low recurrence rate in long-term follow-up.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Observational
- How aging may impact the failure to rescue after colorectal laparoscopic surgery. Analysis of 1000 patients in a single high-volume center.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Fishbone ingestion is a non-negligible cause of intestinal perforation.Frontiers in medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsLaparoscopic surgery is widely used in abdominal emergency surgery (AES), and the possibility of extending this approach to the more recent robotic surgery (RS) arouses great interest. The slow diffusion of robotic technology mainly due to high costs and the longer RS operative time when compared to laparoscopy may represent disincentives, especially in AES. This study aims to report our experience in the use of RS in AES assessing its safety and feasibility, with particular focus on intra- and post-operative complications, conversion rate, and surgical learning curve. Our data were also compared to other experiences though an extensive literature review.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed a single surgeon series of the last 10 years. From January 2014 to December 2023, 36 patients underwent urgent or emergency RS. The robotic devices used were Da Vinci Si (15 cases) and Xi (21 cases).
results36 (4.3%) out of 834 robotic procedures were included in our analysis: 20 (56.56%) females. The mean age was 63 years and 30% of patients were ≥ 70 years. 2 (5.55%) procedures were performed at night. No conversions to open were reported in this series. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, 2 (5.5%) major complications were collected. Intraoperative and 30-day mortality were 0%.
conclusionsOur study demonstrates that RS may be a useful and reliable approach also to AES and intraoperative laparoscopic complications when performed in selected hemodynamically stable patients in very well-trained robotic centers. The technology may increase the minimally invasive use and conversion rate in emergent settings in a completely robotic or hybrid approach.
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.