SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
A systematic review of ergonomic and muscular strain in surgeons comparing robotic to laparoscopic approaches.
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 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Totally robotic low anterior resection versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic TAPP for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic Surgery in Australasian Gynaecology: Results of a 2025 Cross-Sectional Survey.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of KangDuo and da Vinci robot-assisted ureteral reimplantation: a retrospective cohort study.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Ergonomic impact of closed-console (Da Vinci Xi) versus open-console (Hugo RAS) robotic systems: an ex vivo randomized crossover controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotically equipped 3D hybrid operating room in spine and trauma surgery - updated experience in 359 patients and 2080 screws.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Cholecystectomy: Outcomes, Safety, and Value in the Era of Advanced Technology.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- Medicolegal aspects of robotic-assisted surgery: litigation trends, complication risks, and human factors interventions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Qualitative perspectives of early surgeon users on the value of the daVinci 5 surgical system.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- How robotic platforms have expanded the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery: a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Evaluating surgeons' stress using heart rate variability during minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer: a single-center prospective cohort study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Critical analysis on the assessment of ergonomics in robotic surgery: A scoping review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery in children with congenital lung disease: advancements, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Trainees Face Higher Musculoskeletal Demands than General Surgery Trainees in Simulated Laparoscopic Tasks-An Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery: a comparative assessment of outcomes, complications, recovery, and cost.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Review
- Dual operating in gynaecological endoscopy: towards a culture of shared learning and safer surgery.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- Robot-assisted ureteral reimplantation using the KangDuo surgical Robot-01 system: a prospective, single-center, single-arm pilot study.BMC surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery has become more common in recent years with multiple benefits to patients. However, it poses musculoskeletal risks to surgeons, and given their long careers, it is vital to prolong surgeons' longevity. This review aims to evaluate ergonomic impact and methods of ergonomic assessment in surgeons performing traditional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery. To evaluate the ergonomics and how different body areas were being affected by robotic and laparoscopic surgeons, we performed a systematic review of studies following PRISMA guidelines and focussing on muscular and ergonomic assessment of laparoscopic surgeons. Electronic Ovid Medline and Embase databases were searched on the 15th of June 2023. 16 studies were identified, involving 508 surgeons. 530 traditional laparoscopies and 535 robotic-assisted laparoscopies were included. Mixed methods, including surface electromyography (sEMG) and Borg CR10 physical exertion scale, were used to assess muscular activation and fatigue. Whilst individual studies produced conflicting results, overall sEMG and BORG CR10 scales showed that in TLS the deltoid, triceps, biceps and wrist muscles are most commonly activated. In addition, in RALs, lower back, trapezius and finger muscles were activated most commonly. Muscle activations as a whole were generally lower in robotic-assisted laparoscopy. Survey tools such as NASA-TLX confirmed that overall RALS was less fatiguing than TLS for the majority of surgeons. This review explored the ergonomic risks faced by surgeons performing both traditional laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Further research, including standardised methodology and continuous ergonomic assessment, are warranted to ensure robotic surgery remains safe.
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.