ArticleBMC women's health2026
Robotic gynecologic surgery in Saudi Arabia: a descriptive retrospective cohort study of contemporary second-decade perioperative outcomes.
Article in BMC women's health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimFollowing early feasibility reports in 2010, this retrospective cohort study evaluates contemporary robotic gynecologic outcomes after ten years of institutional integration. We aim to assess perioperative safety and explore clinical trends associated with adverse events during this phase at a Saudi tertiary center. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective cohort study of robotic-assisted surgeries performed between January 2018 and December 2020 at King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh. Adult women (N=112) undergoing elective robotic surgery for benign (e.g., symptomatic fibroids, AUB) or malignant conditions were included. We excluded emergency cases, patients scheduled for primary open/laparoscopic approaches, and those with incomplete perioperative records. Data on demographics, surgical metrics (OR time, blood loss), and complications were analyzed using binary logistic regression (p < 0.05) to identify risk factors.
resultsAmong 112 patients (mean age 56.9 years, mean BMI 36.67 kg/m2), 72.3% had prior abdominal surgeries and 54.5% had multiple comorbidities. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 0%. Indications included abnormal uterine bleeding (28.6%), endometrial cancer (27.7%), and hyperplasia (17%). Median blood loss was 100 mL, and the mean operation duration was 142 minutes. Most patients (75.9%) were discharged within one day. Five complications occurred (4.5%): two gastrointestinal, two bladder injuries, and one hernia/obstruction. Univariate analysis identified potential exploratory associations between perioperative events and prior cesarean sections (p=0.048), blood loss (p=0.016), and operating room (OR) duration (p=0.005). Due to the low event rate (4.5%), a multivariate model could not reliably confirm independent risk factors.
conclusionThis second-decade experience demonstrates a high level of safety and technical feasibility in robotic gynecology. The zero conversion rate and low overall morbidity, even in high-BMI and multi-scarred patients, affirm robotic surgery as a dependable primary modality. The identified risk factors should be interpreted strictly as exploratory trends for perioperative planning rather than definitive predictors.
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.