SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Applications of different energy devices in laparoscopic and robotic gynecological surgery: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Robotic versus open (or laparoscopic) hysterectomy: a comprehensive review of clinical, surgical, and economic outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- Ultrasonic surgical aspiration (CUSA®) for laparoscopic excision of endometriosis: a prospective case series demonstrating safety and precision in fertility-preserving surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Posterior Uterine Rupture during Pregnancy in a Patient with Previous Surgery for Severe Endometriosis: A Case Report.Journal of human reproductive sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate and summarize the existing literature regarding the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of various energy sources in minimally invasive gynecological surgeries.
methodsA systematic review was conducted by searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. We included studies that compared different energy sources used in laparoscopic and robotic gynecological surgeries, focusing on their advantages and complications. 37 studies were ultimately included in this review.
resultsAmong the 37 studies, 24 were randomized controlled trials, 11 were retrospective studies, and 1 was prospective. In laparoscopic procedures, advanced energy sources were associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss and shorter operative times. Specifically, ultrasonic devices demonstrated significantly less thermal damage and facilitated easier postoperative histologic assessment of lymph nodes compared to conventional electrosurgery. In robotic assisted surgeries, the literature reported shorter hospital stays and reduced thermal injury during colpotomy when utilizing laser energy. No significant differences were observed in other perioperative outcomes across both minimally invasive approaches.
conclusionAdvanced energy devices may offer advantages in gynecological minimally invasive surgery, particularly in minimizing tissue trauma and enhancing surgical precision. However, evidence on outcomes such as lateral thermal spread and tissue healing remains limited and inconsistent. Further high-quality comparative studies are needed to clarify the clinical implications of each energy source and guide optimal instrument selection, especially in robotic assisted procedures.
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.