SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: an updated systematic review and 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. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reduced-port robotic surgery versus multiport robotic surgery in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndometrial cancer is commonly treated with minimally invasive staging procedures. Whether robotic assistance improves outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopy remains debatable. Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have been used to manage endometrial cancer.
objectivesTo compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopy for endometrial cancer.
methodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of studies comparing robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic surgeries for endometrial cancer. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception to April 15, 2025, for comparative studies. Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate risk ratios or mean differences, and heterogeneity was assessed via the I² statistic. Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were identified. The perioperative outcomes of interest included intraoperative visceral injuries, operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, total number of lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), conversion to laparotomy, length of hospital stay, recurrence and overall 3-year and 5-year survival rates. Data were synthesized via random effects models, and heterogeneity was evaluated via I² statistics.
resultsThirty studies (2 RCTs and 28 observational studies) including 10,673 patients were analyzed. RAS was associated with reduced estimated blood loss (MD - 78.36) and a lower rate of conversion to laparotomy (RR 0.35). There were no statistically significant differences between groups in operative time, blood transfusion, total lymph node harvested, length of hospital stay, or recurrence. Three-year and five-year overall survival were not significantly different; however, these estimates were based on a limited number of studies and should be interpreted cautiously. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across several outcomes.
conclusionRALS is associated with reduced blood loss and fewer conversions to laparotomy compared with CLS, while most perioperative and oncologic outcomes remain comparable. Given the predominance of observational evidence, persistent heterogeneity, and limited survival data, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and high-quality randomized trials are needed to better define the comparative effectiveness of these approaches.
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.