ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Adoption and expansion of robotic surgery across General Surgery in the United Kingdom: a 10-year procedure-specific analysis (2015-2024).
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. 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.
- Navigating decision-making for high-cost robotic surgery in the emergency department: an acute care surgery experience.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic simulation training for laparoscopic skill acquisition in novices: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Transition to total robotic colorectal practice: feasibility and outcomes in a UK colorectal unit.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Contract architecture and time-to-first public activation of robotic urology programs in Poland: a nationwide open-data linkage study.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic surgery (RS) has become an increasingly integral component of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) within General Surgery (GS) over the past 20 years. However, national-level data describing its adoption remain limited. This study provides the first procedure-specific analysis of RS utilization and growth trends of GS procedures within the United Kingdom (UK). Freedom of Information requests were submitted to 153 UK hospitals, requesting annual procedure specific data on six common robotically performed surgeries (colectomy, anterior resection/abdominoperineal resection [AR/APR], cholecystectomy, hernia repair, fundoplication, and gastrectomy) from 2015 to 2024. Stratified data by open, laparoscopic and robotic approaches were provided and analysed for trends using linear regression across centres that provided complete 10-year datasets. 70 trusts provided data totalling 1,054,576 procedures. Robotic utilisation increased markedly from 0.4% in 2015 to 7.0% in 2024 (12.8% of MIS). The largest proportional increases were observed in colectomies (+ 5,240%) and AR/APRs (+ 1,517%). Significant positive trends were detected for robotic approaches in 5 of 6 procedures. Open surgery demonstrated a significant trend (r =-0.77, P < 0.05), while laparoscopic approaches remained stable. Median institutional RS volume in 2024 was 84 cases (IQR 48–155), with wide inter-centre variability. RS within UK GS has expanded substantially, particularly in colorectal procedures, accelerating growth suggesting RS may soon become the dominant minimally invasive modality. Nonetheless, utilisation remains low in high-volume procedures such as cholecystectomy and hernia repair. Standardised data collection, formal training frameworks, and cost-effectiveness evaluation will be essential to support safe and equitable expansion of RS across the UK.
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.