ArticlePloS one2025
A study protocol for a multi-specialty observational cohort comparing robotic stapler and bedside stapler outcomes in robotic-assisted surgeries.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robotic vs. bedside staplers in robotic lung resection: a real-world cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSurgical staplers are essential tools in minimally invasive surgery (MIS), enabling tissue division, hemostasis, and secure anastomoses. With the growth of robotic-assisted surgery, robotic staplers such as SureForm have recently become available. These staplers offer precise articulation and real-time tissue compression monitoring. However, the clinical advantages of robotic staplers over bedside staplers remain uncertain. Studies show mixed results across specialties, mainly due to small sample sizes, outdated data, and data heterogeneity. This study protocol proposes a series of future analyses that will evaluate the clinical outcomes and resource utilization of robotic versus bedside staplers in robotic-assisted surgeries across multiple specialties using recent real-world data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This retrospective cohort study will use data from the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD), a large hospital-based database covering patients with varied payers across the United States. Adult patients (≥18 years) who underwent elective, fully robotic-assisted lung, colorectal, gastric, or bariatric surgeries from 2019 to 2023 will be included. Each surgical specialty will be analyzed in a separate paper. Patients will be categorized into two groups based on the type of surgical stapler used: robotic staplers (SureForm) and bedside staplers (manual or powered). The primary outcome will be postoperative leak (air leak for lung resection; anastomotic leak for colorectal, gastrectomy, and bariatric). Key secondary outcomes are other complications, conversion to open surgery, operative time, transfusion requirements, length of stay (LOS), and cost. Overlap weighting will be applied to minimize bias. DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed surgical journals and presentations at relevant surgical meetings.
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.