Evidence mapPaperPMID 41699174Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026

Da Vinci-assisted versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for obesity: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective comparative studies with prespecified subgroup analysis by baseline BMI severity.

Wajahat Mirza, Mehak Ejaz Khan, Hania Iqbal, Alishbah Khan, Hadi Mohammad Khan, Muhammad Bilal Moeen-Ud-Din

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Wajahat MirzaShifa College of Medicine, Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University, Sector H-8/4, Islamabad, Pakistan. wajahatmirza.clinicalresearch@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-9811-7754
Mehak Ejaz KhanResident General Surgery, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Hania IqbalResident General Surgery, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Alishbah KhanResident General Surgery, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Hadi Mohammad KhanDepartment of General Surgery & Surgical Oncology, Doctors Surgery and Medical Center, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Muhammad Bilal Moeen-Ud-DinDepartment of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy has emerged as an alternative to conventional laparoscopy for managing severe obesity; however, its comparative effectiveness across the obesity spectrum remains unknown. We synthesized prospective comparative evidence comparing da Vinci–assisted and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, incorporating prespecified body mass index strata and GRADE certainty ratings. The protocol (eligibility criteria, outcomes, subgroup definitions, and analysis plan) was finalized before database searching; however, administrative registration in PROSPERO (CRD420251274054) was completed on December 27, 2025, one day after the final database search (December 26, 2025). We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP from inception to December 2025 for prospective comparative studies that enrolled adults undergoing primary sleeve gastrectomy and compared the robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the ROBINS-I tool. The primary outcomes included operative time, complications, and twelve-month body mass index. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed with pre-specified body mass index-stratified subgroups and sensitivity analyses. The GRADE methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Five prospective studies enrolling 222 robotic and 246 laparoscopic patients were analyzed. Robotic surgery was associated with significantly longer operative time than laparoscopy (mean difference 12.89 min, 95% confidence interval 4.46–21.33; p = 0.003; I² = 78%), yet demonstrated comparable overall complications (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.25–2.90; p = 0.80), anastomotic leak (odds ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.34–4.26; p = 0.78), bleeding (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.12–11.22; p = 0.90), and length of stay (mean difference 0.13 days, 95% confidence interval − 0.47 to 0.73; p = 0.67). Robotic surgery achieved a significantly lower twelve-month body mass index compared than laparoscopy (mean difference − 1.85 kg per meter squared, 95% confidence interval − 3.38 to − 0.31; p = 0.02; I² = 0%). Body mass index-stratified subgroup analyses revealed numerically smaller operative time differences in patients with a higher body mass index, although the interaction was not statistically significant. GRADE certainty was very low for all outcomes owing to the serious risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Robot-assisted sleeve gastrectomy confers modest operative time prolongation with comparable perioperative safety and small twelve-month body mass index improvement compared with laparoscopy, although evidence certainty remains very low. These findings support cautious adoption at experienced centers, particularly for super-obese patients, while highlighting the urgent need for definitive randomized trials to establish the comparative effectiveness and optimal patient-selection criteria.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryBody Mass IndexGastrectomyLaparoscopyObesityObesity, MorbidRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBariatric surgeryDa vinciGRADELaparoscopic surgeryMeta-analysisObesityRobotic surgerySleeve gastrectomySuper obesitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41699174

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.