ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic emergency general surgery, future or fallacy?: case-matched comparison of operative and clinical outcomes during the adoption phase in a tertiary centre.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating decision-making for high-cost robotic surgery in the emergency department: an acute care surgery experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Surgery in Acute Care: A Systematic Review of Its Role in Visceral Trauma and Emergency General Surgery.Cureus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsRobotic surgery continues to expand rapidly in elective settings; however, its role in emergency care is limited to date. This study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the adoption of robotic emergency general surgery (EGS) within a high-volume centre.
methodsRobotic EGS cases performed between 2020 and 2024 at a large UK university hospital were identified and matched 1:3 to non-robotic cases based on operation type, age, gender, and pathology. Data on demographics, operative details, and operative and clinical outcomes were collected. Groups were compared using appropriate statistical tests.
resultsA total of 369 patients were included, with 95 (25.7%) in the robotic and 274 (74.3%) in the non-robotic (open/laparoscopic) EGS group. There were no differences between groups for demographics, procedures, or pathology. No statistically significant differences were observed in major complications (10.5% vs 9.1%, p = 0.688), conversion to open surgery (1.1% vs 3.9%, p = 0.174), post-operative length of stay (4 vs 3 days, p = 0.814), and 6-month mortality (0.0% vs 2.9%, p = 0.092) between robotic and non-robotic groups. Adjusted analyses showed no association between surgical approach and differences in operative time, major complications, or post-operative stay.
conclusionThe introduction of robotic emergency general surgery is safe and feasible with comparable short-term clinical outcomes to non-robotic approaches. Further research is needed to explore the impact of an established robotic EGS programme on long-term clinical, patient, and surgeon-reported outcomes.
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.