SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recovery-centered outcomes.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether the technical advantages of robotic surgery improve recovery beyond conventional laparoscopy in older adults remains uncertain. We synthesized recovery-centered outcomes across surgical specialties. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched through 12 September 2026. Two authors independently screened 14,050 de-duplicated records and assessed 58 full-text reports. Eligibility, extraction and ROBINS-I domains were completed independently; disagreements were resolved by source-based adjudication. Procedure- and outcome-specific random-effects analyses used restricted maximum likelihood with modified Hartung-Knapp intervals, with DerSimonian-Laird and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses. The searches imported 17,374 records and yielded 14,050 unique records after removal of 3,324 duplicates. Fifty-eight reports underwent full-text review; 17 were excluded and 41 observational comparative studies were included. Thirty-four studies contributed 98 source-verified outcome rows. No randomized trial was identified. Colorectal conversion favored robotics in four cohorts (exploratory OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.72; I²=23%), whereas colorectal overall morbidity was inconclusive (four cohorts: OR 0.67, 0.43-1.05). Severe morbidity and gastric complication strata were imprecise. Observational evidence suggests fewer conversions with robotic surgery in selected older colorectal cohorts, but residual confounding, cohort overlap and imprecise procedure-specific safety estimates prevent a universal recovery-benefit claim. Frailty and functional recovery remain undermeasured.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42799899What 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.