ReviewJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2026
Perioperative outcomes and anesthetic challenges of robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery: a systematic review.
Review in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted gynecologic (RAS) surgery offers enhanced precision, ergonomics, and visualization compared with open (OP) and laparoscopic (LAP) approaches. However, it introduces distinct anesthetic challenges related to patient positioning, airway access, and postoperative recovery and analgesia. This review aims to evaluate perioperative outcomes across four domains: intraoperative anesthetic management, postoperative recovery, pain control strategies, and surgical performance.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of the current literature on adult women undergoing robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery under general anesthesia. Data on perioperative outcomes across the aforementioned domains were extracted via standardized selection, extraction, and bias assessment methods.
resultsA total of 479 papers were included in the study following screening of over 10,000 citations. Intraoperatively, airway complications were infrequently reported; however, a few cases of increased pulmonary pressures and hypercapnia emerged. Postoperatively, RAS was associated with shorter hospital stay (mean 2.52 days RAS vs. 1.85 LAP vs. 5.11 OP) and faster return to daily activities (mean 11.4 days RAS vs. 13.6 LAP vs. 13.2 OP), but evidence for validated quality of recovery scores was lacking. Pain intensity and analgesic requirements were found to be lower after RAS than after OP and sometimes LAP, with inconsistent findings across studies. Surgical outcomes favored RAS, showing reduced blood loss (mean 154 mL RAS vs. 149 LAP vs. 358 OP), lower conversion and major complications rates than other approaches. Oncologic metrics-including lymph node yield and R0 resection-were comparable across approaches. Overall study quality was limited by a moderate to serious risk of bias across most outcomes.
conclusionRobotic-assisted gynecologic surgery is a feasible and safe alternative to laparoscopic and open approaches, with advantages in selected surgical outcomes and potential benefits in postoperative pain and recovery. However, further high-quality randomized studies are needed to confirm these benefits. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251105240.
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.