Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39821378›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025

Democratization in abdominal ablation therapies: The impact of percutaneous robotic assistance on accuracy-A systematic review.

Ana Karla Uribe Rivera, Mariano E Giménez

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Ana Karla Uribe RiveraIHU-Strasbourg, Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, 1, Place de l'Hôpital, 67000, Strasbourg, France. karla.uriberivera@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9100-1935
Mariano E GiménezIHU-Strasbourg, Institute of Image-Guided Surgery, 1, Place de l'Hôpital, 67000, Strasbourg, France.

Funding

"Plan Investissements d'Avenir" ANR-10-IAHU-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in medical technology have revolutionized minimally invasive procedures. This study aims to determine the status of intra-abdominal ablation therapies, focusing on outcomes regarding technique improvement and benefits related to the learning curve. A systematic search in four databases was performed in March 2024 to identify relevant studies. Endpoints included targeting accuracy, organ efficacy, safety, outcomes and technical advantages regardless of physician experience. A total of 40 studies were included. The robotic technique demonstrated significantly higher accuracy (median 1.75 mm) compared to the freehand technique (median 4.50 mm) (p < 0.05). RFA and MWA were the most frequently used ablation techniques, reaching a rate of 52.5% and liver was the main target organ in 77.5% of the studies. Subgroup analysis showed a median tumor size of 2.30 cm, 1.40 mm for the readjustments and 3.30 mm for accuracy in the freehand technique. For robotic approach, the median tumor size was 1.95 cm, readjustments were 0.55 mm, and accuracy was 1.85 mm, and no statistical difference was identified. Severe adverse events were lower with the robotic approach, and improvement in the learning curve was observed among novice physicians. Robotic-assisted ablation techniques improve accuracy and efficacy compared to freehand techniques and are easier for novices to use. This technology allows novices to achieve similar outcomes to experts, contributing to the democratization of ablation techniques. Nevertheless, more clinical trials and standardized studies are necessary to validate these findings and enable the integration of robotic systems into routine practice.

Indexed as

AbdomenAblation TechniquesMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLearning CurveLiver NeoplasmsTreatment OutcomeAblation techniquesAccuracyIntra-abdominal percutaneous ablationPercutaneous robotic ablationSurgical democratization

Identifiers

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.