ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery2026
Comparing laparoscopic and robotic splenectomy: A systematic review of the outcomes.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient selection, practice patterns, and perioperative outcomes for robotic splenectomy: a contemporary ACS-NSQIP analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robotic splenectomy for large splenic cyst with indocyanine green-assisted vascular identification: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
- Robotic Splenectomy for Refractory Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura.CRSLS : MIS case reports from SLSArticle
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
abstractSplenectomy can be performed using various surgical approaches, including open, laparoscopic (LS), and robotic splenectomy (RS). While LS has been the mainstay for many years, it is associated with a steep learning curve and increased rates of morbidity and conversion to open surgery in complex cases such as splenomegaly, obesity, haematological malignancies, and patients with prior laparotomies. RS has emerged as a technique that facilitates a spleen-focused dissection, potentially reducing anatomical disruption and operative risk. This systematic review aimed to compare the peri-operative outcomes of LS and RS in non-traumatic indications for splenectomy. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases, along with searches for unpublished and ongoing studies through the World Health Organization platform. Data extraction was standardized using a pre-tested collection form, and statistical methods were employed to derive mean values where only medians and interquartile ranges were reported. The results demonstrated that the mean operative time was longer in the RS group, although the difference was not statistically significant. Conversion to open surgery occurred in 12 LS cases compared to 2 RS cases. Post-operative complications were more frequent in the LS group (9 patients) compared to the RS group (1 patient), with most complications observed after 24 hours. The mean length of hospital stay was similar between groups (6.0 days for RS vs. 6.5 days for LS; P = 0.89). RS was associated with lower mean intraoperative blood loss compared to LS. In conclusion, RS may offer advantages over LS in terms of reduced blood loss, lower conversion rates, and fewer postoperative complications, although it does not significantly impact hospital stay duration or cost-effectiveness and is associated with longer operative time.
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.