ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
The anesthesiologist's perspective in choosing between robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic urological surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundComparative studies between robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) primarily focus on surgical outcomes, with limited emphasis on the anesthesiologist's perspective. This study aimed to compare anesthesia-related Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) outcomes to inform surgical decision-making.
methodsThis retrospective study included 831 patients who underwent partial nephrectomy or radical prostatectomy for renal or prostate cancer between September 2021 and October 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed in a 1:1 ratio based on age, gender, BMI, surgery type, and comorbidities. Primary outcomes included anesthesia time, surgical time, recovery time, and resting/activity VAS scores on postoperative day one (POD1). Secondary outcomes comprised ambulation status, nausea/vomiting, dizziness, and anxiety incidence. Safety indicators were pharyngeal pain, respiratory depression, and oxygen requirement.
resultsAfter PSM, 252 patients were allocated to each group. The RALS group demonstrated significantly longer anesthesia and surgical times compared to the CLS group (P < 0.05). PACU recovery time showed no significant difference. While Rest-VAS on POD1 was similar, Act-VAS was significantly higher in the RALS group (P<0.05). The proportion of patients achieving autonomous mobilization (Grade 1) was significantly lower in the RALS group(P<0.01). Incidences of nausea/vomiting and dizziness were significantly higher in the RALS group (P<0.05). Anxiety incidence was significantly lower in the RALS group (P<0.05). No significant differences were found in sore throat, respiratory depression, or oxygen requirement rates.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that from an anesthesiological perspective, RALS is associated with longer surgical and anesthesia time. The observed differences in postoperative recovery indicators highlight the importance of considering patient physiological reserve when selecting a surgical approach. However, given the observational nature of this study, these findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and warrant prospective validation.
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.