Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41801567›Full record

ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026

Comparison of surgical outcomes between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy for stage IV endometriosis: A propensity score-matched analysis and review of the literature.

Naofumi Higuchi, Kiyoshi Kanno, Chie Sasamori, Tomoka Kashiwabara, Taisuke Iwata, Yudai Sawai, Hiroshi Onji, Sayaka Masuda, Ryo Taniguchi, Yoshifumi Ochi and 5 more

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors.

Naofumi HiguchiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Kiyoshi KannoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan. less_is_more71@yahoo.co.jp.
Chie SasamoriDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Tomoka KashiwabaraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Taisuke IwataDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Yudai SawaiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Hiroshi OnjiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Sayaka MasudaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Ryo TaniguchiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Yoshifumi OchiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Yoshiko KuroseDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Mari SawadaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Shiori YanaiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Tsutomu HoshibaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.
Masaaki AndouDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kurashiki Medical Center, 250 Bakuro-chou, Kurashiki, 710-8522, Okayama, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery, especially laparoscopic surgery, remains the standard treatment for endometriosis; however, robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is also gaining adoption. Several meta-analyses have reported comparable perioperative outcomes between RAS and conventional laparoscopy. This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes between RAS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for hysterectomy in patients with severe endometriosis. Among 2,466 minimally invasive hysterectomies performed for benign gynecologic diseases between October 2021 and December 2024, 223 patients with severe endometriosis (revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine [rASRM] stage IV) were identified. After excluding cases requiring concomitant gastrointestinal or urologic procedures, 154 patients were included (RAS, n = 86; CLS, n = 68). Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using covariates including rASRM score, ENZIAN classification, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery, and uterine weight. After matching, 96 patients were analyzed (48 per group). Operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative hemoglobin change were 97 vs. 110 min (p = 0.179), 50 vs. 100 mL (p = 0.002), and ˗1.2 vs. ˗1.1 g/dL (p = 0.605) in the RAS and CLS groups, respectively. Intraoperative complication rates were 0% vs. 2.1% (p = 1.000), and postoperative complication rates were identical at 8.3% in both groups (p = 1.000). RAS hysterectomy in patients with severe endometriosis was associated with significantly lower blood loss and comparable operative time compared with CLS, with no differences in perioperative complications. These findings suggest a potential advantage of RAS; however, further studies are warranted.

Indexed as

EndometriosisHysterectomyLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleHumansOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic hysterectomyPropensity score matchingrASRM stage IVRobotic-assisted hysterectomySevere endometriosis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.