Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39202724›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Is It the Best Option? Robotic Surgery for Endometriosis.

Jihyun Lee, Seongmin Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

2 authors.

Jihyun LeeGynecologic Cancer Center, CHA Ilsan Medical Center, CHA University College of Medicine, 1205 Jungang-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si 10414, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9086-992X
Seongmin KimGynecologic Cancer Center, CHA Ilsan Medical Center, CHA University College of Medicine, 1205 Jungang-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si 10414, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2541-8879

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

conventional laparoscopic surgeryendometriosisrobotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID39202724
PMCPMC11355767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.