SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic-assisted surgery for acute abdominal emergencies: a systematic review of 1142 cases.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic and Robotic Appendectomy: Efficiency and Cost Comparison.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
- Acute cholecystitis in the robotic era: comparative safety and feasibility of robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an acute care surgery service.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Evidence-based, cost-effective management of perforated peptic ulcer disease: An algorithm of the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Emergency General Surgery Algorithms Working Group.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and robotic surgery in emergency gastrointestinal procedures: a review of current evidence and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Critical appraisal of "Robotic‑assisted surgery for acute abdominal emergencies: a systematic review of 1142 cases".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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This comprehensive systematic review assesses the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted procedures for acute abdominal emergencies, analyzing data from 27 studies comprising 1142 cases. The investigation specifically examines five critical emergency conditions: complicated appendicitis (representing 32.5% of cases), acute cholecystitis (28.7%), small bowel obstruction (15.2%), perforated peptic ulcers (9.8%), and acute diverticulitis (7.4%). Analysis reveals robotic procedures averaged 152 min (± 38) in duration, with an overall conversion rate of 9.1%. Complication rates showed no significant difference from laparoscopic methods (13.2% versus 14.7%, p = 0.21). The data highlight two significant robotic advantages: improved intraoperative hemostasis (85 mL versus 120 mL average blood loss, p = 0.03) and lower conversion rates among obese patients (11.3% versus 18.6%, p = 0.04). These findings indicate that robotic systems may provide distinct technical benefits for specific emergency scenarios while delivering safety outcomes equivalent to traditional minimally invasive surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40908371What 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.