首页|Data on Robotics Reported by Nicole Grossmann-Waniek and Colleagues (Robot-assisted surgery in thoracic and visceral indications: an updated systematic review)
Data on Robotics Reported by Nicole Grossmann-Waniek and Colleagues (Robot-assisted surgery in thoracic and visceral indications: an updated systematic review)
扫码查看
点击上方二维码区域，可以放大扫码查看
原文链接
NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature
New research on Robotics is the subject of a report. According to news originating from Vienna, Austria, by NewsRx correspondents, research stated, “In surgical advancements, robot-assisted surgery (RAS) holds several promises like shorter hospital stays, reduced complications, and improved technical capabilities over standard care. Despite extensive evidence, the actual patient benefits of RAS remain unclear.” Our news journalists obtained a quote from the research, “Thus, our systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in visceral and thoracic surgery compared to laparoscopic or open surgery. We performed a systematic literature search in two databases (Medline via Ovid and The Cochrane Library) in April 2023. The search was restricted to 14 predefined thoracic and visceral procedures and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Synthesis of data on critical outcomes followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool Version 1. For five out of 14 procedures, no evidence could be identified. A total of 20 RCTs and five follow-up publications met the inclusion criteria. Overall, most studies had either not reported or measured patient-relevant endpoints. The majority of outcomes showed comparable results between study groups. However, RAS demonstrated potential advantages in specific endpoints (e.g., blood loss), yet these findings relied on a limited number of low-quality studies. Statistically significant RAS benefits were also noted in some outcomes for certain indications-recurrence, quality of life, transfusions, and hospitalisation. Safety outcomes were improved for patients undergoing robot-assisted gastrectomy, as well as rectal and liver resection. Regarding operation time, results were contradicting. In summary, conclusive assertions on RAS superiority are impeded by inconsistent and insufficient low-quality evidence across various outcomes and procedures. While RAS may offer potential advantages in some surgical areas, healthcare decisions should also take into account the limited quality of evidence, financial implications, and environmental factors.”
ViennaAustriaEuropeEmerging TechnologiesHealth and MedicineMachine LearningRobotRoboticsSurgery
NETL
NSTL
Springer Nature
