SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Remote robotic surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Global research trends and hotspots of robot-assisted urological telesurgery: a bibliometric analysis.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the clinical effectiveness, safety, technical feasibility, and challenges of remote robotic surgery in general surgery, gynecology, orthopedics, and urology, focusing on issues like communication technology, ethics, and cost.
methodsRelevant reports on remote robotic surgery were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang (2001-2025). Literature quality was evaluated using tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI).
resultsA total of 26 articles were included (13 in Chinese, 13 in English) covering general surgery, gynecology, orthopedics, urology, and thyroid surgery. The results showed that the average operation time was slightly longer than that of traditional methods (about 10-30 min), but the safety was good. Most studies had communications backup plans, such as backup networks or local physician take-overs, to deal with the risk of disruption. Tele-robotic surgery has a high success rate and accuracy with controllable network latency, showing the potential to expand access to medical resources, especially in remote areas. However, it still faces challenges such as network stability, equipment cost, operation accuracy, data privacy, and ethical issues. Most of the included studies reported successful cases, and there was a lack of in-depth analysis of failure cases or adverse outcomes of patients, which may have publication bias.
conclusionDespite challenges, remote robotic surgery shows promise in overcoming geographical and resource limitations. The quality of current evidence is low, with serious methodological limitations and reporting bias. The establishment of international mandatory registration systems, standardized safety protocols, and transnational collaboration networks are urgent to promote this field from "proof of concept" to "clinical practice". But, with continuous technological advancements, it is expected to play an increasingly significant role in global healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41813998What 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.