ArticleGynecology and minimally invasive therapy
Safe Implementation of Robotic Surgery for Gynecologic Diseases at a Tertiary Center: Retrospective Analysis of 149 Cases and Review of the Literature.
Article in Gynecology and minimally invasive therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- International expert consensus-driven surgical process model for robot-assisted hysterectomy: Delphi study results.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of robot-assisted, conventional laparoscopic, and open myomectomy: a 10-year single-center retrospective study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Implementing Robotic Gynecologic Surgery: Early Outcomes From a Tertiary Care Hospital in Portugal.Cureus · 2025Article
- The New Concepts from New Evidences.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The initial learning curve is a barrier to introducing robotic surgery. Evidence regarding appropriate simulation programs that allow for a smooth introduction of gynecological robotic surgery remains limited. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 149 patients who underwent robotic surgery for gynecologic diseases. Before their first procedure, the surgeons completed a robotic surgery training program. Assistant surgeons also completed simulation programs, including setup procedures and manipulation of the robotic arm. Results: The mean (± standard deviation) operative, setup, and console times were 170 ± 54 min, 22 ± 8 min, and 126 ± 51 min, respectively. No patient required blood transfusion or conversion to laparoscopy or laparotomy. Patients undergoing surgery by the same surgeon were divided into three groups (first-third, middle-third, and last-third of patients undergoing surgery) to assess chronological changes. No statistically significant differences were found between the operative and console times among these groups. The setup times for the middle and last third of patients were 20 ± 7 min and 18 ± 7 min, respectively, which were statistically significantly shorter than those for the first third of patients. No significant differences in the operative and console times done by five physicians who completed programs were observed between the first 75 and the latter 74 procedures; however, the setup times of the latter 74 procedures were significantly shorter than those of the first 74 procedures (25 ± 9 min vs. 19 ± 6 min; Conclusion: The setup time was influenced by clinical experience. An appropriate simulation program allowed a safe implementation of robotic surgery.
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.