ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparative analysis of laparoscopic and robotic appendectomy: a multi-hospital retrospective cohort study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are we gaining value? A national evaluation of robotic versus laparoscopic appendectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- National Utilization and Clinical Scenarios of Robotic Appendectomy in the United States, 2022 to 2024.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic and Robotic Appendectomy: Efficiency and Cost Comparison.Journal of surgery and research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAppendectomies are one of the most commonly performed procedures by general surgeons in the United States and the laparoscopic approach has been the standard for decades. However, adoption of robotic assistance for the treatment of appendiceal diseases continues to grow. Despite this growth, clinical outcomes regarding laparoscopic versus robotic appendectomy remain unclear.
methodsWe conducted a multi-hospital retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent appendectomy between August 1, 2021 and February 29, 2024. We compared preoperative clinical characteristics, intra-operative surgical details, and post-operative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic groups. The post-operative outcomes analyzed included conversion to open, need for extended resection, 30-day return to the operating room, need for blood transfusion, 30-day readmission, abscess requiring drain, and death. Statistical analysis included chi-square tests, student t-tests, and multivariable logistic regression.
resultsA total of 1,431 patients (1,079 laparoscopic, 352 robotic) were included for analysis. The robotic group was found to have a higher proportion of Caucasian patients, more American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) class 1 patients, and a higher proportion of non-elective cases. We found that more robotic appendectomies were completed at community hospital sites rather than larger academic medical centers. Robotic assistance was associated with significantly lower rates of conversion to open (p < 0.001). Additionally, robotics was associated with significantly lower rates of unexpected extended resections (p = 0.015). We saw trends towards statistical significance for reduced need for blood transfusion and abscess requiring IR drain in the robotic group. To account for preoperative differences between the two groups, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed, and the robotic group was associated with a 66% decreased risk of any complication (OR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.17, 0.68]).
conclusionRobotic appendectomy demonstrates favorable clinical outcomes compared to the traditional laparoscopic approach. These findings support the possible advantages of a robotic-assisted appendectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41261248What 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.