SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025
Costs and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery in South Korea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Status and Future Perspectives of Robotic Surgery for Esophagogastric Cancer in Asia.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic Surgery in Gynecology: Balancing Clinical Benefit, Cost-Effectiveness, and Accessibility.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Robotic Thoracic Surgery: Current Landscape and Future Directions.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Extravesical Ureteral Reimplantation (RALUR-EV) in Children: Initial Single-Center Experience at a Public Tertiary-Care Hospital in Ecuador.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has rapidly expanded across multiple surgical specialties since being introduced in South Korea. RAS has been proven clinically safe and effective, but its economic implications have not been thoroughly investigated. As public reimbursement for RAS is increasingly adopted by Asian countries such as Japan and Taiwan, the economic implications of RAS have become a critical factor in influencing reimbursement decisions in Korea. Method: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting cost and cost-effectiveness of RAS in Korea, published between 2007 and March 2025. Studies were searched using three databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus. Two authors independently performed literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment using ROBINS-I and RoB. Outcomes were analyzed through meta-analysis with RevMan. Results: A total of 24 were included, comprising two randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 22 observational studies. Most studies were conducted at single institutions. Colorectal surgery was the most frequently studied procedure. For RAS, total hospitalization costs ranged between $6,762 and $20,206, while laparoscopic or endoscopic surgery spanned from $3,038 to $11,933, and open surgery costs ranged from $1,706 to $9,009. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the mean difference in total hospitalization cost between RAS and laparoscopic surgery was $3,279 (95% CI: $2,414 to $4,145; I Conclusion: This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis specifically assessing the economic implications of RAS in Korea. Our findings indicate that RAS is more costly than other surgical modalities at the time of surgery. However, the current review identified a lack of evidence on post-discharge costs, and no comprehensive cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses have been conducted in Korea. Future studies are encouraging to explore the long-term costs across different modalities.
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.