SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Operator radiation burden and periprocedural outcomes in robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (rPCI) was introduced in part to reduce occupational radiation exposure and improve ergonomics in the catheterization laboratory, while also offering potential procedural advantages. However, the comparative clinical value of rPCI versus manual PCI (mPCI) remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the relative effects of rPCI and mPCI on postprocedural outcomes, healthcare personnel radiation exposure, postprocedural complications, and follow-up outcomes.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible studies published from January 2014 to January 2026. After rigorous study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment, quantitative synthesis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Odds ratios (ORs) were used for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. A random-effects model was applied when heterogeneity was significant (I²>50%); otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used.
resultsCompared with mPCI, rPCI was associated with a consistent reduction in operator radiation exposure. Patient- and procedure-related radiation indices, including dose-area product, air kerma, and fluoroscopy time, also tended to favor rPCI. Procedural duration was longer with rPCI, whereas contrast use was comparable between groups. rPCI was also associated with higher clinical success and postprocedural TIMI 3 flow, while technical success and coronary dissection rates were similar between groups. At 12-month follow-up, rPCI showed a trend toward lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality.
conclusionsThe available data support a clear occupational safety advantage of rPCI and suggest favorable periprocedural safety and efficacy profiles, with potential clinical benefits. However, these findings, particularly for patient-level outcomes, should be considered hypothesis-generating rather than conclusive, as they are primarily derived from observational studies with limited sample sizes and require confirmation in larger randomized trials.
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.