Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40418406›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025

Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopy for colorectal endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiao Zhang, Xin Zhang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Xiao ZhangDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Zibo Central Hospital, Zibo, China.
Xin ZhangDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Zibo Central Hospital, Zibo, China. zbhyn12345@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) offers a broader surgical field, enhanced visualization, and greater instrument maneuverability, suggesting potential advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery (LPS), which is currently the gold standard for treating colorectal endometriosis. To address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive review of existing studies to compare the perioperative outcomes of RAS and LPS in the management of colorectal endometriosis. A comprehensive search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and SpringerLink to identify any studies that prior to February 2nd, 2025. To compare RAS to LPS for colorectal endometriosis, we looked at things like operation duration, expected blood loss, length of stay, conversion to laparotomy, all complications, and bowel endometriosis resection. The operative time for RAS in colorectal endometriosis resection was significantly longer than that for LPS (data aggregated from six studies; WMD 21.51 min, 95% CI 4.58-38.43, p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in intraoperative blood loss (four studies; WMD 1.2 ml, 95% CI - 34.01-36.41, p = 0.95), length of hospital stay (four studies; WMD 0.2 days, 95% CI - 1.09-1.49, p = 0.76), or the number of cases requiring conversion to laparotomy (four studies; OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.52-9.95, p = 0.28) (Fig. 2). LPS demonstrated a significantly higher utilization of segmental resection (six studies; OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.93, p < 0.05), while no significant differences were observed in the rates of shaving (six studies; OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77-1.47, p = 0.71) or double discoid excision (six studies; OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.95-1.78, p = 0.1) (Fig. 3). Additionally, the included studies reported no significant differences in overall complication rates (five studies; OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.64-1.28, p = 0.57) (Fig. 3) or the incidence of Clavien-Dindo classification complications classified as Grade I(five studies; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.44-1.65, p = 0.64), II(five studies; OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-1.0, p = 0.5), III(five studies; OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.63-2.0, p = 0.7), or IV(five studies; OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.14-4.59, p = 0.81). Our study found that, apart from a significantly longer operative time for RAS compared to LPS, RAS demonstrated comparable outcomes in intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, conversion to open surgery, bowel endometriosis resection, and postoperative complication rates. These findings suggest that RAS has the potential to become a viable alternative to LPS in the future. However, this conclusion still requires validation through large-scale, prospective, randomized controlled trials.

Indexed as

Colonic DiseasesEndometriosisLaparoscopyRectal DiseasesRobotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeColorectal endometriosisLaparoscopicMeta-analysisRobotic

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.