SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review of randomized trials and pooled analysis of conversion rates.
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. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To summarize randomized evidence assessing robotic surgery in relation to conventional laparoscopic and open abdominal approaches for endometrial cancer treatment, with particular attention to perioperative outcomes and conversion to open surgery. Randomized controlled trials evaluating robot-assisted surgical treatment of endometrial cancer were identified across major biomedical databases up to December 2025. Eligible studies compared the robotic approach against laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery. Quantitative pooling was undertaken only when outcome reporting was sufficiently consistent across studies. Eight randomized trials including 647 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 322 patients underwent robotic surgery, 244 conventional laparoscopy, and 81 laparotomy. Most perioperative endpoints were reported heterogeneously, limiting formal pooling. Operative time varied across trials when robotics was compared with laparoscopy and was generally longer than laparotomy. Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospitalization did not show consistent differences between the two minimally invasive approaches. Compared with laparotomy, the robotic approach was linked to reduced postoperative stay. Conversion to laparotomy occurred less frequently after robotic surgery than after laparoscopy (0.7% vs. 8.4%; OR 0.17; p = .03). Complication reporting was inconsistent, although trials comparing robotics with laparotomy generally favored the robotic approach. Direct procedural costs were higher for robotics, whereas indirect costs favored robotics in the single study evaluating them. The robotic approach resulted in a lower need for open conversion compared with conventional laparoscopy. Other perioperative outcomes appeared broadly comparable between the two minimally invasive approaches, while comparisons with laparotomy suggested shorter hospital stay and fewer postoperative complications, although these findings should be interpreted cautiously because of the limited and heterogeneous randomized evidence.
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.