ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
Retrospective matched case-control comparison of Totally Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy (RSG) during the learning curve with Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG): why is operative time different?
Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic conversion of sleeve gastrectomy to single anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass (SASI): feasibility and one-year outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Early Outcomes, Learning Curve and Cost Analysis of Totally Robotic Sleeve Gastrectomy.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Initial Single-Center Experience with Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Retrospective Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic approach is slowly rising in metabolic surgery, and laparoscopy is still considered the gold standard for Sleeve Gastrectomy. Aim of our study was to assess and compare outcomes of RSG through a matched comparison with LSG. Retrospective search of prospectively maintained database of our surgical department was carried out find all consecutive patients who underwent RSG from April 2023 to August 2024. Each subject who underwent RSG was matched one-to-one with a patient treated with LSG in the same period. Operative time (docking + console time for the robotic procedures), length of stay, need for rescue drugs, and perioperative complications were recorded calculated and compared. A total number of 50 patients (25 RSG and 25 LSG) were included in the present analysis. Operative time in the LSG group was significantly shorter than in the RSG group (57.8 ± 12.3 VS 80.6 ± 16.6 min, p < 0.01), but it was comparable to console time (57.8 ± 12.3 VS 56.9 ± 19.6, p = 0.85). Mean docking time was 23.7 ± 11 min. Length of stay, readmissions, conversion to laparoscopy/open surgery, early complications, and rescue drugs administration were comparable between the two groups. Age, sex, and BMI were not good predictors neither of laparoscopic nor robotic operative time. RSG during the learning curve proved as safe as LSG, but it was associated with longer operative time due to the duration of the docking step. Operation length may become comparable once the learning curve plateau is reached. Age, BMI, and sex are not good criteria of choice between the two approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.