ArticleBMC surgery2025
Beyond Pathology: A Procedure-Based Approach to Planning and Predicting Outcomes in Robotic Gynaecological Oncology Surgery.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundCurrent surgical planning in robotic gynaecology relies heavily on pathological diagnosis, yet operating theatre utilisation may depend more on procedural requirements. Recent advances in machine learning-based surgical prediction have highlighted the need for more accurate planning models whilst challenging fundamental assumptions about surgical complexity.
objectivesTo compare the impact of procedural requirements versus traditional complexity markers on operating time and complications in robotic gynaecological surgery, and to develop a practical framework for procedure-based surgical planning that could complement contemporary machine learning approaches.
methodsRetrospective analysis of 80 consecutive robotic gynaecological surgeries (2021-2024) at a single tertiary centre. We examined relationships between procedural requirements (lymphadenectomy, adhesiolysis), traditional complexity markers (BMI > 35, pathology type, previous surgery), and outcomes (operating time, complications). A Preoperative Procedural Demand Score (PPDS) was developed and validated against pathology-based predictions. Multivariable regression analysis included β-coefficients, confidence intervals, and comprehensive model diagnostics.
resultsProcedural requirements explained operating time variation better than pathology type. Standard procedures averaged 135.4 ± 28.6 min. Adding lymphadenectomy increased time by 33.1 min (95% CI: 24.8-41.4), adhesiolysis by 19.8 min (95% CI: 11.5-28.1). Traditional complexity markers showed minimal impact: BMI > 35 added 8.1 min (95% CI: -7.2 to 23.4, p = 0.42), previous surgery 7.6 min (95% CI: -8.4 to 23.6, p = 0.48). All complications (6.3%) were minor (Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II). Operating time decreased from 178.0 ± 47.2 to 135.9 ± 36.8 min between study halves (p < 0.001), whilst intraoperative complications decreased from 12.5 to 0% (p = 0.02), despite similar case complexity.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that procedural requirements better predict operating time than traditional markers in robotic gynaecological surgery, representing a novel conceptual framework for surgical planning. However, the single-centre design and modest predictive accuracy compared to contemporary machine learning approaches indicate that comprehensive multi-centre prospective validation is essential before recommending widespread adoption. The excellent safety profile across all complexity levels supports the feasibility of robotic surgery in traditionally "complex" cases, though larger studies are needed to establish definitive safety parameters.
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.