ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Is It the Best Option? Robotic Surgery for Endometriosis.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness and Cost of Single-Site Robotic Surgery and Single-Site Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynecological Diseases: The Era of Single-Site Robotic Surgery May Have Arrived.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic multidisciplinary endometriosis surgery with multi-visceral resection: evaluation of short-term feasibility and safety outcomes.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Innovative Approaches for the Treatment of Spinal Disorders: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Exploring the Shared Pathogenesis Mechanisms of Endometriosis and Cancer: Stemness and Targeted Treatments of Its Molecular Pathways-A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endometriosis is a chronic condition affecting approximately 10% of women of reproductive age, leading to significant physical and emotional stress. Treatments include medical management and surgical interventions, with laparoscopic surgery being the gold standard for removing endometrial tissue. The advent of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) has enabled more complex procedures to be performed minimally invasively, increasing its use in high-difficulty surgeries. Developed in the late 20th century, systems like the Da Vinci Surgical System have revolutionized surgery by enhancing precision, dexterity, and visualization. The latest models, including the Da Vinci Xi and SP, offer advanced features such as enhanced arm mobility, fluorescence imaging, and single-port capabilities. Comparative studies of RALS and conventional laparoscopy (LPS) for endometriosis show mixed results. While some studies indicate no significant differences in complications or recovery outcomes, others highlight longer operative times and hospital stays for RALS. Despite these drawbacks, RALS is not inferior to LPS overall. The clinical benefits of RALS include greater precision and accuracy, reduced surgeon fatigue, and a faster learning curve, facilitated by advanced ergonomic and control systems. However, the high costs and extensive infrastructure requirements limit the accessibility and availability of robotic surgery, particularly in smaller or rural hospitals. The absence of tactile feedback remains a challenge, though upcoming advancements aim to address this. Continued research and development are essential to make robotic surgery more cost-effective and broadly accessible, ensuring its benefits can reach a wider patient population. This abstract encapsulates the key aspects of robotic surgery's development, comparative studies with conventional methods, and its clinical benefits and limitations, highlighting the need for ongoing improvements and research.
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.