SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Outcomes in laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted surgery for median arcuate ligament syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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
Median Arcuate Ligament Syndrome (MALS) is a rare condition caused by external compression of the coeliac artery by the median arcuate ligament (MAL), leading to postprandial abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and weight loss. This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic (RMALR) and laparoscopic (LMALR) MAL release. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to compare perioperative and postoperative outcomes of LMALR versus RMALR. Comparative studies including adult patients undergoing either approach were included. Outcomes assessed were conversion to open surgery, resolution of pain, length of admission, postoperative complications, symptom recurrence and time to recurrence. Five retrospective comparative studies comprising 158 patients were included. No differences were found between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in conversion to open, resolution of pain, postoperative complications, length of admission, or overall time to recurrence. However, RMALR showed a significantly longer time to symptom recurrence (9.04 months, 95% CI 4.18-13.89; p = 0.0003). Both LMALR and RMALR are safe and effective for MALS, with comparable perioperative and postoperative outcomes. The longer symptom-free interval after robotic surgery may reflect greater precision in dissection around the coeliac axis. However, further prospective studies with standardised follow-up are needed to validate these findings.
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.