SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Standardisation in robotic surgery for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-center experience with robotic colorectal surgery for benign indications.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Robotic surgery for Crohn's disease: multinational survey of colorectal surgeons.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery offers technical advantages over laparoscopy, including improved dexterity and visualisation. However, its role in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains poorly defined, with existing studies limited by variability and lack of standardisation. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reproducibility, operative detail, outcome reporting, and procedural consistency in the current literature on robotic-assisted surgery for IBD. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024514488). Comprehensive searches of five databases and grey literature from January 2015 to April 2024 were performed. Studies involving robotic surgery in adult IBD patients were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Sixteen studies involving 614 patients met inclusion criteria. Most were retrospective (81.3%) and single-arm (62.5%), with robotic ileocolic resection being the most common procedure (50%). Significant heterogeneity existed in port placement, docking, and intraoperative techniques. Technical reporting, particularly on robotic setup, was inconsistent. Definitions of postoperative outcomes, including complications and conversion rates, varied across studies. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols were used in 18.8% of studies, with minimal reporting of patient-reported outcomes. While risk of bias was generally low, limited follow-up and absence of comparator arms reduced the strength of conclusions. Current evidence on robotic surgery in IBD is methodologically variable and poorly standardised, particularly regarding technical setup and outcome definitions. Future research should focus on prospective, multicentre studies with detailed intraoperative data, standardised outcomes, and long-term follow-up.
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.