Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40297947›Full record

ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2025

Unveiling the real benefits of robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology: from telesurgery to image-guided surgery and artificial intelligence.

Matteo Pavone, Marta Goglia, Andrea Rosati, Chiara Innocenzi, Nicolò Bizzarri, Barbara Seeliger, Pietro Mascagni, Filippo Alberto Ferrari, Antonello Forgione, Antonia Carla Testa and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

17 authors.

Matteo PavoneIRCAD France Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9791-9464
Marta GogliaIRCAD France Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.
Andrea RosatiDipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Rome, Italy.
Chiara InnocenziDipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Rome, Italy.
Nicolò BizzarriDipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Rome, Italy.
Barbara SeeligerIRCAD France Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.
Pietro MascagniInstitute of Image-Guided Surgery, IHU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Filippo Alberto FerrariDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, AOUI Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Antonello ForgioneIRCAD France Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.
Antonia Carla TestaDipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Rome, Italy.
Anna FagottiDipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Rome, Italy.
Francesco FanfaniDipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Rome, Italy.
Denis QuerleuDipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni ScambiaDipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, UOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Rome, Italy.
Cherif AkladiosDepartment of Gynecologic Surgery, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Jacques MarescauxIRCAD France Research Institute Against Digestive Cancer, Strasbourg, France.
Lise LecointreInstitute of Image-Guided Surgery, IHU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Several new robotic platforms are being commercialised, with different features in terms of types of consoles, numbers of arms, and targeting transabdominal or natural orifice approaches. The benefits of robotic surgery over laparoscopy have yet to be conclusively demonstrated in gynaecology, as several studies comparing perioperative and postoperative patient outcomes have reported no significant differences, leading to a lack of precise recommendations in surgical guidelines for both gynaecologic oncology and benign gynaecology. In addition, these outcomes must be balanced against the high costs of robotic surgery, in particular when considering building an infrastructure for safe telesurgery to democratise access to telementoring and remote interventions. Objectives: Drawing from the expertise gained at the IRCAD Research and Training Center in Strasbourg, France, this article aims to provide an overview of the unveiled benefits of robotic-assisted surgery in gynaecology, investigating the role of digital surgery integration. Methods: The objective of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the latest advancement in digital robotic-assisted surgery in gynaecology and illustrate the benefits of this approach related to the easiest integration with new technologies. To illustrate such evidence, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases were searched. Main Outcome Measures: In the era of surgical innovation and digital surgery, the potential of robotic surgery becomes apparent through the capacity to integrate new technologies. Image-guided surgery techniques, including the analysis of preoperative and intraoperative images, 3D reconstructions and their use for virtual and augmented reality, and the availability of drop-in robotic ultrasound probes, can help to enhance the quality, efficacy and safety of surgical procedures. Results: The integration of artificial intelligence, particularly computer vision analysis of surgical workflows, is put forward to further reduce complications, enhance safety, and improve operating room efficiency. Additionally, new large language models can assist during procedures by providing patient history and aiding in decision-making. The education and training of young surgeons will undergo radical transformations with robotic surgery, with telementoring and shared procedures in the side-by-side double-console setup. Conclusions: Robotic systems play a fundamental role in the transition towards digital surgery, aiming to improve patient care through integration of such new technologies. What is New?: While the advantages of robotic surgery in terms of perioperative outcomes have yet to be demonstrated, the benefits of its easiest integration with new technologies are evident.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceimage-guided surgeryminimally invasive surgeryRobotic-assisted surgerytelesurgerytraining

Identifiers

PMID40297947
PMCPMC12042076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.