ReviewCureus2026
Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches on Patient Recovery: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has reshaped modern operative care by reducing tissue trauma and accelerating recovery compared with open procedures. Despite extensive research, inconsistencies remain across specialties regarding recovery outcomes and comparative effectiveness, and open surgery remains necessary in selected complex cases where minimally invasive access may be unsuitable or unsafe. This systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare patient recovery following minimally invasive and open surgical approaches. A structured search was conducted across major databases for studies published between 2015 and May 2026, including randomized and observational comparative designs. Data were extracted using a standardized approach and synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity in study designs, surgical procedures, and outcome reporting. Key outcomes included length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, complication rates, operative time, and functional recovery. Findings indicated shorter hospital stay, reduced postoperative pain, and faster recovery in minimally invasive groups, while operative time and cost varied across procedures. Complication profiles favored minimally invasive approaches in many procedures, although differences were procedure-specific. Robotic-assisted approaches did not demonstrate uniform recovery superiority over conventional laparoscopic techniques. MIS enhances short-term recovery and supports improved patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency when applied to appropriate patients and procedures. Conventional open surgery continues to have an important role in technically demanding, advanced, or anatomically complex procedures. Further research should address long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, complication-specific endpoints, and technological integration to strengthen evidence-based clinical decision-making across diverse surgical populations and settings.
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.