Observational studyJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic bariatric surgery in Australia: early outcomes from a national clinical quality registry with propensity score matched analysis.
Observational study in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The robotic approach to metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) is becoming more popular despite limited data supporting beneficial outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the early outcomes of robotic MBS in Australia. An observational analysis of prospectively maintained data from the Australian arm of the Australia and New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry between 2014 to June 2022 were conducted. All patients who underwent robotic MBS (RMBS) were propensity score matched 1:1 to laparoscopic MBS (LMBS) within the Registry. Clinical outcomes were compared using conditional logistic regression analyses. A total of 66,232 patients were included (LMBS n = 65,322; RMBS n = 910) in the analysis. The majority of RMBS were gastric or duodenal-ileal bypasses, significantly higher than the LMBS cohort (49.6 vs 24.3%, p < 0.0001) and more were revisional procedures (26% vs 19.6%, p < 0.0001). On direct comparison, there were significantly more defined adverse events in the RMBS group. When adjusted for cofounders, clinical outcomes of RMBS were comparable to LMBS with no increased risks of defined adverse events or complications.
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.