SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Current evidence and reported experiences for robot-assisted emergency general surgery: systematic review.
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.
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.
- Emergency robotic-assisted repair in an elderly patient with strangulated hernia and active influenza A infection: A case report.World journal of virology · 2026Article
- Robotic Surgery in Acute Care: A Systematic Review of Its Role in Visceral Trauma and Emergency General Surgery.Cureus · 2026Review
- Robotic emergency general surgery, future or fallacy?: case-matched comparison of operative and clinical outcomes during the adoption phase in a tertiary centre.Journal of robotic 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency general surgery (EGS) represents a significant global healthcare burden. While minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopy have become standard in elective and emergency settings, the adoption of robot-assisted approaches in EGS (REGS) has been more gradual. The expanding interest in REGS necessitates a comprehensive evaluation of its current role, outcomes, cost implications, and implementation strategies. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2025 for studies reporting on robot-assisted surgery in emergency general surgical settings. The following domains were assessed: Safety, clinical outcomes, cost, and experiential data, with quality assessment via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twenty studies involving over 5 million patients were included. The majority were retrospective cohort studies from Western centres, primarily the United States. Common procedures included cholecystectomy, colectomy, and hernia repair. Robotic approaches demonstrated low conversion rates, comparable or shorter lengths of stay, and similar or reduced complication and ICU admission rates versus laparoscopic or open techniques. However, operative times were generally longer, and hospital costs were consistently higher. Implementation strategies across four studies emphasized staged training, multidisciplinary involvement, and institutional support. Study quality ranged from moderate to good, though outcome reporting and cost analyses were inconsistent. Robot-assisted EGS appears feasible and safe in selected patients within institutions equipped with appropriate expertise and infrastructure. While early outcomes are encouraging, widespread adoption is challenged by higher costs and limited high-quality evidence. Future prospective studies, robust cost-effectiveness analyses, and structured implementation models are essential to define the long-term role of robotics in emergency surgical care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40884599What 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.