ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Robotic-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection: a scoping review of preclinical and early clinical evidence.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically demanding and associated with a steep learning curve and increased complication risk. Constraints of conventional endoscopes, together with the observed benefits of robotic assistance in selected surgical procedures, have driven development of robotic systems for advanced endoscopic applications. This review maps the landscape of robotic endoscopic systems in the context of ESD.
methodsA PRISMA-ScR-compliant scoping review was conducted. Six databases were searched in 2025. Studies evaluating robotic endoscopic platforms for ESD in preclinical or clinical settings were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies. Data were extracted on study characteristics, platform features, experimental design, and outcomes. Findings were synthesised descriptively.
resultsTwenty-seven studies were published between 2010 and 2025, with most from 2019 onwards (22; 82%), and mainly from East Asia (23; 85%). Most studies were preclinical (21; 78%), corresponding to mid-level technological readiness (TRL 4-7). Six studies (22%) reported early clinical evaluation (TRL 8), including one multicentre randomised trial. The most frequently studied site was the stomach (18; 67%). Over half of the studies were comparative (15; 56%), including 14 comparing robotic-assisted ESD (R-ESD) with conventional ESD (C-ESD). In preclinical comparisons (n = 13), R-ESD was associated with shorter submucosal dissection times and higher dissection speeds. En bloc resection rates were high overall, with lower rates observed mainly in novice-performed C-ESD. Perforation was uncommon overall, with higher rates concentrated in novice-performed C-ESD. Early clinical studies (IDEAL 1-3) demonstrated high en bloc resection rates with acceptable safety.
conclusionPreclinical comparative evidence suggests improved procedural efficiency with robotic assistance, particularly in novice-operated settings. Early clinical evidence indicates feasibility and acceptable safety. However, findings should be interpreted as exploratory signals rather than established clinical superiority. Further technological refinement and robust clinical evaluation are required before wider adoption.
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.