SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic cholecystectomy using da Vinci SP, single-site, and multiport systems: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.
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
Robotic platform names do not specify operative access or instrumentation. We compared da Vinci SP, Single-Site, and multiport cholecystectomy, prioritizing total operative time and planned-access completion failure. Five databases were searched in August 2026, with Scopus rerun on 6 October 2026. A registered review underwent outcome-specific, publication-based adjudication. Direct robot-to-robot mean differences were synthesized using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and modified Hartung-Knapp confidence intervals (CIs). Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) comparisons were ancillary; historical indirect calculations were confined to a supplementary audit. Fourteen reports were included; nine supplied extractable direct data from analysis samples totaling 1,542 participants. For SP versus Single-Site, total operative time was very uncertain (4 studies; 580 participants; mean difference [MD] - 12.49 min; 95% CI - 36.50 to 11.53; I² = 91.0%), including one conditionally reconstructed mean. The full planned-access completion-failure composite was not estimable. Console time was secondary (4 studies; 580 participants; MD - 11.40 min; modified Hartung-Knapp 95% CI - 25.35 to 2.56; I² = 80.4%; approximate 95% prediction interval - 49.03 to 26.24). Its conventional REML-Wald CI excluded zero (- 19.43 to - 3.36), but the small-study-adjusted interval did not. Rare-event safety, long-term hernia, cost-effectiveness, and platform-specific workload evidence were insufficient. The evidence is very uncertain about differences in total operative and console time between da Vinci SP and Single-Site cholecystectomy. An overall operative-time advantage or comparative safety equivalence has not been established. The evidence does not isolate the causal effects of incision count and articulation.Review registration: PROSPERO CRD420261475321.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42873325What 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.