SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Democratization in abdominal ablation therapies: The impact of percutaneous robotic assistance on accuracy-A systematic review.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
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
Identifiers
39821378What 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.