SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis learning curve: 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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The learning curve for robotic colorectal surgery is increasingly characterised. However, the specific learning curve for intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) remains poorly defined. This review compares robotic and laparoscopic IA with respect to operative time, cases required for proficiency, complication rates, and conversion to extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was registered on Open science framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/K4MYZ ). On March 18, 2025, OVID and PubMed were searched using the search terms; "laparoscopic," "robotic," "anastomosis," "learning," "education," and "training." Yielding a total of 273 results from PubMed (179) and OVID (94). After screening a total of thirteen studies were included. Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria, including eight comparative analyses and six directly comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques. Four studies evaluated robotic learning curves without a comparator group, while one was a literature review incorporating institutional experience. Most studies were retrospective (n = 8), with two prospective clinical studies and two experimental simulation-based studies. Hybrid approaches (robotic mobilisation with laparoscopic EA) contributed to heterogeneity (Reitz et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6074-7 ). Learning curve assessment was heterogeneous, with most studies using cumulative sum (CUSUM) or risk-adjusted CUSUM (RA-CUSUM) analyses based on operative time or technical performance metrics. Proficiency in robotic IA was reported after approximately 11-29 cases in some series and around 20 cases in others, although larger studies of robotic colorectal surgery demonstrated broader ranges of up to 100 cases. Robotic right hemicolectomy with IA demonstrated a shorter learning curve and reduced anastomosis time compared with laparoscopic IA. Complication rates, conversion rates, and oncological outcomes were comparable between approaches (Gachabayov et al. 2019, Surg Technol Int, 34:163-168). Robotic intracorporeal anastomosis, particularly in right hemicolectomy, appears to have a shorter and less technically demanding learning curve compared with laparoscopic techniques, without compromising safety or oncological outcomes. These findings support a potential role for robotic platforms in facilitating adoption of intracorporeal anastomosis. However, current evidence is limited by retrospective design, small cohorts, and inconsistent definitions of proficiency (Gachabayov et al. 2019, Surg Technol Int, 34:163-168; Van Eetvelde et al. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01514-6 ).
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.