SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Environmental impact of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries are being increasingly performed to achieve improved patient outcomes. The National Health Service (NHS) committed to a net-zero policy in 2020, emphasizing the need for sustainable healthcare. However, the environmental impact of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries is unclear. This review aimed to systematically evaluate the environmental impact of these surgical modalities. MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost), Embase (via Ovid), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched between 1 January 2000 and 31 March 2026 to identify primary English-language studies reporting quantifiable environmental metrics for laparoscopic and/or robotic colorectal surgery. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full-text assessments were performed. Quality assessment was performed using the Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool. We screened 932 records and identified an additional study through citation searching. Ultimately, 6 articles were included in the narrative synthesis. QuADS score was between 26 and 36 (out of 39). Two studies found that waste generation and carbon emissions were higher for robotic surgery than laparoscopic surgery. Surgical consumables, operative waste generation, supply chains, and theatre resource utilisation were major contributors to environmental burden. However, heterogeneity in study design and environmental metrics limited further assessments. Both laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries are associated with measurable impacts across multiple reported outcomes. This review highlights the need for standardised metrics to evaluate the environmental impact of these approaches and the need for further research and increased awareness, particularly regarding healthcare sustainability initiatives and NHS net zero commitments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42684523What 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.