Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41254779›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2025

Robotic surgery in emergency general surgery: an overview of UK practice.

Emily Francesca Smith, Michael Okocha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Emily Francesca SmithUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Michael OkochaUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Michael.okocha@nhs.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLaparoscopic surgery (LS) is well established in the United Kingdom (UK), while robotic surgery (RS) is increasingly adopted in elective practice. However, its role in emergency general surgery (EGS) remains undefined. This study provides the first national estimates of RS use in UK EGS, evaluating trends in utilisation, outcomes, and workforce capacity.

methodsTwo rounds of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were submitted to all NHS acute trusts and boards providing EGS services across Great Britain, covering 1 January 2019-1 January 2023 and 1 January 2023-1 January 2025. Data collected included robotic system ownership, numbers and types of robotic procedures, length of stay (LOS), complication rates, and staffing. LOS data were reported as mean ± standard deviation, with differences between approaches assessed using Welch's t-tests.

resultsResponse rates were 83% (113/136 trusts, 2019-2023) and 65% (91/140 trusts, 2023-2025). Robotic availability increased from 36 to 91 systems nationally (147% rise), with the number of trusts performing emergency RS doubling (13 to 26). A total of 1816 emergency robotic procedures were performed in 2023-2025, alongside 9232 elective cases. Cholecystectomy was the most frequent emergency procedure, increasing almost sixfold (200 → 1396). Complications were infrequent, with device-related issues (n = 18) and tissue injury (n = 27) most common. LOS was consistently shorter for RS compared with open surgery across all procedures (all p < 0.01), with particularly marked reductions in cholecystectomy, Hartmann's procedures, and small bowel resections. Comparisons with LS were procedure-specific: RS was shorter in cholecystectomy and hernia repair, equivalent in small bowel resection, and longer in appendectomy. Workforce capacity remained a limiting factor, with median in-hours trained staff unchanged (11 vs 10), but out-of-hours staff rising from 3 to 24 across all trusts.

conclusionRobotic surgery in UK emergency general surgery is feasible, safe, and expanding, though utilisation continues to lag behind elective practice. RS offers clear LOS advantages over open surgery, with variable benefits compared to laparoscopy. Scaling adoption will require addressing cost, system heterogeneity, and the shortage of trained out-of-hours staff. National policy must prioritise training, standardised data collection, and equitable access to ensure safe integration of RS into routine emergency care.

Indexed as

General SurgeryRobotic Surgical ProceduresAcute Care SurgeryHumansLength of StayState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID41254779
PMCPMC12625132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.