ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic versus open (or laparoscopic) hysterectomy: a comprehensive review of clinical, surgical, and economic outcomes.
Review 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted hysterectomy has gained widespread clinical adoption; however, comparative evidence regarding its clinical outcomes, oncologic efficacy, and cost-effectiveness remains subject to ongoing debate.
methodsA narrative review with a structured literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Wiley Online Library, and Google Scholar (January 2010 to May 2026). Evidence was synthesized across systematic reviews/meta-analyses, randomized trials, and observational cohorts, evaluating eight key clinical and economic domains: intraoperative metrics, oncologic outcomes, conversion rates, complications, length of stay, hospital costs, learning curves, and baseline patient characteristics.
resultsAcross 180 eligible studies, minimally invasive approaches (both robotic and laparoscopic) demonstrated significantly reduced estimated blood loss and shorter hospital stays compared with open hysterectomy, with robotic platforms yielding perioperative outcomes largely comparable to conventional laparoscopy. In benign indications, conversion rates between robotic and laparoscopic approaches showed no statistically significant difference, though robotic platforms conferred procedural advantages in selected high-risk cohorts (e.g., morbid obesity). Regarding oncologic outcomes, long-term survival in endometrial cancer is comparable across minimally invasive and open modalities. Conversely, for early-stage cervical cancer, evidence underscores superior disease-free and overall survival with open radical hysterectomy compared with minimally invasive approaches. Total hospital costs were consistently higher for robotic surgery, and operative times were frequently prolonged during initial institutional learning phases.
conclusionRobotic hysterectomy represents a safe minimally invasive option offering tangible perioperative benefits over open surgery and clinical parity with laparoscopy. Nevertheless, its clinical utility must be balanced against elevated acquisition and procedural expenditures, institutional learning curves, and established oncologic constraints in cervical malignancy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42799924What 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.