SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Outcomes of endoscope-assisted and robot-assisted submandibular sialadenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEndoscope-assisted submandibular sialadenectomy (EASS) and Robot-assisted submandibular sialadenectomy (RASS) are emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional submandibular gland (SMG) resection. This review aims to evaluate the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of EASS and RASS.
methodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies on EASS or RASS outcomes up to July 2024. Outcomes of interest included operative time, intraoperative bleeding, incision length, satisfaction, and facial nerve injury. Other complications besides facial nerve injury were also documented.
resultsEighteen studies involving 364 patients were included. The operation time and incision length in the endoscopic-assisted group were longer than those of conventional group, but the postoperative satisfaction was higher. There were no significant differences in drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications between the two groups. In addition, subgroup analyses within the single-arm meta-analysis were performed for the operation time, wound length, length of hospital stay, complications of EASS and the operation time, drainage volume, length of hospital stay of RASS (MD = 96.06, 95% CI 81.84-110.27; MD = 35.08, 95% CI 9.61-60.56; MD = 3.6, 95% CI 1.6-5.5; OR 0.11, 95%CI: 0.01-0.2; MD = 85.6, 95% CI 53.5-117.6; MD = 208.87, 95% CI - 2.43-420.17; MD = 3.31, 95% CI 3.15-3.47).
conclusionsEASS appears to be a feasible and safe surgical procedure for patients with SMG lesions. Compared with open SMG resection, EASS showed a longer operative time and incision length, but higher cosmetic satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42257966What 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.