ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
What Do Randomised Trials Reveal About Robotic Surgery? A Critical Appraisal Across Colorectal, Upper Gastrointestinal, Hepato-Pancreaticobiliary, and General Surgical Specialties.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgeon task load, ergonomics, and clinical outcomes in laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Procedure-specific outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch across a decade of MBSAQIP adoption.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery has become an established modality across various surgical specialties, offering enhanced visualisation, precision, and ergonomics compared to conventional laparoscopic approaches. This review summarises current evidence from randomised controlled trials evaluating robotic surgery in colorectal, upper gastrointestinal, hepatopancreatobiliary, hernia, bariatric, and breast procedures. The findings consistently show that robotic surgery is safe and technically feasible, with comparable or improved short-term outcomes in select contexts, particularly in anatomically complex cases such as rectal cancer or pancreatic surgery. However, most trials report significantly longer operative times and higher direct costs, with limited demonstration of clear cost-effectiveness or long-term oncological superiority. Consequently, while robotic surgery holds promise for selected indications, its widespread adoption should be guided by ongoing evidence generation and careful consideration of clinical value, patient outcomes, and economic impact.
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.