SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
A comparison of perioperative outcomes for da Vinci robotic-assisted, laparoscopic and open surgery in oncologic procedures: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of evidence from China.
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
The use of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has increased markedly in China, but comparative evidence on its perioperative performance in cancer care is dispersed across specialties and study designs. This review synthesized Chinese evidence to examine the safety and effectiveness of da Vinci robot-assisted surgery (dV-RAS) relative to laparoscopic/video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (LAP/VATS) and open surgery across seven oncologic procedures. We systematically reviewed comparative studies published from 2010 to 2024 and pooled estimates for dV-RAS versus LAP/VATS or open surgery. Prespecified perioperative outcomes were conversion to open surgery, operative time, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, hospital length of stay, postoperative complications, readmission, reoperation, and 30-day mortality. The review included 116 studies. Relative to LAP/VATS, dV-RAS was associated with lower odds of conversion to open surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.33; p < 0.01), less blood loss (mean difference [MD] - 32.48 mL; 95% CI - 40.86 to - 24.11; p < 0.01), lower odds of transfusion (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.51-0.73; p < 0.01), a shorter hospital stay (MD - 1.06 days; 95% CI - 1.30 to - 0.82; p < 0.01), fewer 30-day postoperative complications (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.61-0.73; p < 0.01), and fewer reoperations (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.40-0.96; p = 0.03). Comparisons with open surgery likewise favored dV-RAS for blood loss, transfusion, length of stay, and postoperative complications. Operative time, readmission, and 30-day mortality did not differ significantly between approaches. Across seven oncologic procedures, pooled evidence from China indicated that dV-RAS was associated with better outcomes on several perioperative measures than LAP/VATS or open surgery. Because between-study heterogeneity was substantial and most included studies were retrospective, the findings should be interpreted cautiously and confirmed in higher-quality prospective research.
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.