ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Robot-Assisted Surgery for Endometrial Cancer Using KangDuo versus Da Vinci Systems: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Emerging robotic platforms in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- KangDuoTranslational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer using Weigao versus da Vinci systems: a retrospective comparative study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Economic assessment of next-generation robotic surgical systems compared with the multiport da Vinci platform: a comprehensive review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Commentsmparing the KangDuo surgical Robot-01 and da Vinci Xi system for endometrial cancer surgery: a multi-center, randomized, parallel-controlled, noninferiority trial".International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the advancement of medical technology, robotic-assisted surgery has emerged as a promising approach for the management of endometrial cancer (EC). This retrospective comparative study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and functional outcomes of two robotic systems-Kangduo (KD-RAS) and Da Vinci (DV-RAS)-in the treatment of EC. Methods: This study included patients with stage T1 EC who underwent robotic-assisted surgery using either the Kangduo or Da Vinci system at Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital. A comprehensive statistical analysis was conducted on their perioperative clinical data, encompassing preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters. Results: A total of 211 patients were enrolled in this study, including 125 in the KD-RAS group and 86 in the DV-RAS group. The surgical success rate was 100% in both groups, with no significant differences observed in preoperative baseline characteristics (P > 0.05). There were also no significant differences between the two groups in terms of blood loss, transfusion requirements, or Clavien-Dindo grade I/II complications (P > 0.05). However, the KD-RAS group exhibited longer operation time, console time, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay compared to the DV-RAS group (P < 0.05). Notably, both total hospitalization costs and surgical expenses were significantly lower in the KD-RAS group than in the DV-RAS group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The Kangduo robotic system demonstrates comparable efficacy and equivalent safety profiles to the Da Vinci system, supporting its non-inferiority in clinical performance for the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer.
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.