ReviewCureus2026
Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Systematic Review of Laparoscopic and Robotic Techniques Across Common Surgical Procedures.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive surgery has transformed surgical practice by reducing operative trauma, postoperative pain, and recovery time compared with open approaches. While conventional laparoscopy remains widely used across specialties, technical limitations such as restricted instrument articulation and limited visualization have driven the adoption of robotic-assisted surgery. This review aimed to synthesise contemporary comparative evidence evaluating robotic versus laparoscopic surgery, with emphasis on perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes. A systematic literature search identified comparative studies published between 2015 and 2025 involving adult patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic procedures. Following screening and eligibility assessment, 11 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Data extraction focused on operative time, blood loss, conversion rates, complications, recovery parameters, functional outcomes, and oncologic adequacy. Owing to methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesized descriptively and organized by outcome domain. Robotic surgery demonstrated selective advantages, including reduced conversion to open surgery, lower blood loss in specific procedures, and improved functional recovery in anatomically complex operations. Operative time was frequently longer with robotic techniques, while complication rates, hospital stay, and oncologic outcomes were generally comparable between approaches. The robotic surgery offers targeted benefits in complex, minimally invasive procedures while maintaining oncologic safety comparable to laparoscopy, supporting its role as a complementary surgical modality.
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.