
==== Front
BMJ Open
BMJ Open
bmjopen
bmjopen
BMJ Open
2044-6055
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39284694
10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076750
bmjopen-2023-076750
Original Research
Surgery
1737
1506
Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0919-7677
Lai Tzu-Jung 1t.lai.1@research.gla.ac.uk

Roxburgh Campbell 2Campbell.Roxburgh@glasgow.ac.uk

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9764-0113
Boyd Kathleen Anne 1Kathleen.Boyd@glasgow.ac.uk

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4568-5483
Bouttell Janet 1Janet.Bouttell@glasgow.ac.uk

1 Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow, UK
2 School of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, Glasgow, UK
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

None declared.

Ms; t.lai.1@research.gla.ac.uk
2024
16 9 2024
14 9 e07675015 6 2023
02 8 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract

Objective

To undertake a review of systematic reviews on the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery across a mix of intracavity procedures, using evidence mapping to inform the decision makers on the best utilisation of robotic-assisted surgery.

Eligibility criteria

We included systematic reviews with randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials describing any clinical outcomes.

Data sources

Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library from 2017 to 2023.

Data extraction and synthesis

We first presented the number of systematic reviews distributed in different specialties. We then mapped the body of evidence across selected procedures and synthesised major findings of clinical outcomes. We used a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The overlap of primary studies was managed by the corrected covered area method.

Results

Our search identified 165 systematic reviews published addressing clinical evidence of robotic-assisted surgery. We found that for all outcomes except operative time, the evidence was largely positive or neutral for robotic-assisted surgery versus both open and laparoscopic alternatives. Evidence was more positive versus open. The evidence for the operative time was mostly negative. We found that most systematic reviews were of low quality due to a failure to deal with the inherent bias in observational evidence.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery has a strong clinical effectiveness evidence base to support the expanded use of robotic-assisted surgery in six common intracavity procedures, which may provide an opportunity to increase the proportion of minimally invasive surgeries. Given the high incremental cost of robotic-assisted surgery and longer operative time, future economic studies are required to determine the optimal use of robotic-assisted surgery capacity.

clinical decision-making
surgery
minimally invasive surgery
==== Body
pmcSTRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

This study is the first overview of systematic reviews to summarise the full body of evidence of clinical outcomes across a range of procedures in several specialties.

This overview is likely to be generalisable to all countries and procedures as the included systematic reviews in our studies are from a broad range of settings.

This study uses a combination of an overview approach and a novel evidence-mapping method to provide readers with both the evidence landscape and in-depth information in a visual format.

Our detailed review, which covered the years 2017–2023 and included studies published in English, focused on a limited number of procedures.

Introduction

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) is a form of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) involving a telemanipulation system comprising a surgeon console, computerised control system and patient-side cart with robotic arms. RAS offers improved dexterity, better ergonomics and enhanced fixed operator-controlled visualisation and retraction, thus improving the capabilities of surgeons during complex surgery.1 The use of RAS has grown rapidly and is performed worldwide, with 12 million procedures performed using the da Vinci system since inception.2 The most widespread growth of RAS is in urology, with over 90% of prostatectomies in the USA and over 85% in the UK over the past decade. Globally, other specialties like upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) surgery, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery and gynaecology have also experienced increased RAS volume, though it currently constitutes a small proportion of total procedural volume.3

The idea, development, exploration, assessment and long-term study (IDEAL) framework conceptualises the evidence shaping process for surgical innovation.4 Research has shown that innovators often omit stages in evidence generation with a lack of randomised controlled studies and an extensive reliance on observational studies and implementation into practice.4 This is partly because there are many difficulties in conducting randomised studies for surgical innovation, which include preferences from patients and surgeons, unwillingness to accept randomisation, difficulties in concealing allocation, inadequate subjects for effect size, learning curve and incremental innovation.5 Moreover, evidence of clinical effectiveness can be lacking in surgical innovation because regulatory pathways do not incentivise evidence generation, and a limited number of clinical studies are required for approval.6 7 Hospitals may invest in equipment RAS device prior to determining which procedures it will be used for, with some acquisitions motivated by the desire to enhance hospital reputation or attract top-tier surgeons and trainees.8 9 Accordingly, an important consideration for hospitals is determining how best to optimise the utilisation of these technologies once acquired, in order to justify their initial investment and realise their full potential in enhancing patient outcomes and improving overall healthcare delivery.

The first step for decision makers is to ensure that patient safety is prioritised and that the selected procedures are at least equally effective compared with traditional methods. A previous overview review found limited evidence, with only 18 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) across various surgical procedures comparing robotic surgery to conventional approaches, highlighting challenges in drawing overall conclusions on the sustained effectiveness of robotic surgery.10 Second, the cost-effectiveness of RAS would be assessed across the selected mix of procedures to justify initial investment and ongoing expansion, ensuring value and optimal use of resources. Given that RAS is a ‘platform’ technology (in that it can be used across numerous indications),11 it is important to fill its capacity in the most cost-efficient manner, which requires decision makers to prioritise among candidate procedures. Therefore, to facilitate this decision-making process, our aim in this overview review is to present evidence comparing outcomes across different intracavity procedures in four clinical specialties (colorectal, gynaecology, upper GI and HPB, where RAS versus laparoscopic or open surgery is still in equipoise.

Methods

Given the breadth of our scope, we adopted the overview of reviews approach as described by Cochrane methods12 and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) on reporting.13

Search methods for identification of reviews

Our search strategy was based on a developed strategy by the Health Improvement Scotland to identify systematic reviews comparing RAS to conventional surgical approaches in humans, and it has been verified by the University of Glasgow Information Scientist. The databases Ovid Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library are limited to the most recent years (from April 2017 to December 2023), given the incremental evidence generation and clinical setting changes. Search terms are provided as online supplemental file 1.

Eligibility criteria for considering studies for the reviews

As our aim was to gain an overview of the clinical effectiveness evidence for the use of RAS, we included published systematic reviews (SRs) of robotic surgery in any surgical field compared with laparoscopic or open surgery and included any outcome measure. We excluded any systematic review which looked at aspects of RAS other than the clinical effectiveness of RAS. We excluded reviews which were unable to report on outcomes of RAS separately from other minimally invasive procedures. We excluded conference abstracts and review protocols as they generally provide insufficient information.14 Reviews not in English were excluded, while this could be a limitation, and there is evidence that such language exclusion does not cause bias.15

Study selection

The first author (T-JL) screened the titles and abstracts of the identified articles. Duplicate publications were managed and removed using the Endnote software.16 A random sample of 10% with an Excel algorithm of papers was screened by two authors (KAB and JB) to confirm the exclusion criteria and ensure a systematic approach to inclusion/exclusion.17 18 Where the first author was uncertain about whether to include a paper, this was reviewed by KAB and JB and any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We introduced a two-stage study selection as we wanted to identify the volume of current evidence across specialties and examine the strength of evidence in areas where RAS is still in equipoise. In stage one, we included all systematic reviews (SRs) of the clinical effectiveness of RAS versus conventional surgeries. We then categorised identified articles by specialty in order to obtain the landscape of clinical uses of RAS. In stage two, we limited our review to a number of intracavity procedures in four specialties (colorectal, gynaecology, upper GI and HPB). We chose four specialties where there is a building evidence base but RAS is not dominant.19 The selection process is reported in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flowchart.20

Data extraction and synthesis of results

The extracted data from the systematic reviews included author, year of publication, setting, study design, sources, number of included studies, participants (ie, diagnosis for procedures), intervention (types of interventions compared, numbers assigned in each group), a range of clinical outcomes, quality rating given to the papers and conclusions of the SRs. The high level of heterogeneity in the patient population and procedure precluded meta-analysis. We conducted a descriptive analysis and tabulated the results by outcome for six procedures (colorectal oncological resection, hysterectomy, liver resection, pancreatectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy and gastrectomy) in the four specialties of interest.

For all SRs, we summarised their clinical outcomes by using broad descriptors (positive, neutral or negative) for each procedure. The volume of defined descriptors from the SRs by clinical outcomes was counted in six procedures. We used a traffic light system to present the descriptors; green represents ‘positive effect’; red represents ‘negative effect’, indicating a statistically significant finding in favour of the conventional surgical technique and yellow is ‘neutral’, which means that no statistically significant difference was found. It should be noted that these statistically significant findings may not indicate clinical significance. This bespoke mapping method allowed us to present a clear picture of the strength of the identified evidence. We did not synthesise evidence; therefore, no sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesised results. However, we provided information on the heterogeneity of each meta-analysis in the supplementary file, if available.

Assessment of methodological quality and overlap management

We evaluated the quality and risk of bias of the included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2 which is designed to evaluate the systematic reviews including both randomised and non-randomised study designs.21 The assessment for the reviews was not taken as an inclusion criterion but was presented alongside the descriptive analysis of the evidence to allow the reader to form a judgement about the quality of the evidence available. Details are provided as online supplemental file 2.

In reviewing systematic reviews, there is a risk that underlying studies may be included in more than one of the identified systematic reviews. This overlap may give excessive weight to certain studies and bias the results. We used the citation matrix, the corrected covered area method (CCA) to manage this issue.22 23 Details for CCA are provided as online supplemental file 3.

Results

Study selection

Through the systematic search, 3363 potentially relevant articles were obtained initially, 1208 duplicates were removed and 2155 proceeded to screening. After assessing for exclusion, there were 628 articles remaining and then categorised by specialty. For the studies with procedures out of interest (n=451) and no accessible full text (n=12), they were excluded. A total of 165 systematic reviews were included for this overview, and the study selection process is summarised in figure 1 with a PRISMA flowchart.20

Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram of systematic review selection process for the review of reviews. GI, gastrointestinal; HPB, hepatopancreaticobiliary; RAS, robot-assisted surgery.

Volume of reviews by specialty

Our review included SRs published within 5 years from 2017–2023. Figure 2 presents the volume of reviews identified by specialty. The highest number of reviews was identified in urology (n=131), where RAS is well-established, followed by colorectal (n=89), HPB (n=77), gynaecology (n=59) and upper GI (n=50).

Figure 2 Number of systematic reviews identified by specialty. GI, gastrointestinal; HPB, hepatopancreaticobiliary.

Evidence of clinical outcomes

We identified a wide range of outcomes across the included systematic reviews and categorised them as surgical, postoperative, oncological or long-term outcomes. These outcomes were summarised with descriptors and their numbers of sources were recorded across every procedure. The underlying data is presented in online supplemental file 4. Figure 3 shows a comparison of clinical outcomes for RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic approaches, across procedures with a colour spectrum where red represents a negative, yellow a neutral and green a positive result. Where the evidence is mixed positive, neutral and negative, this is indicated by brown. The gradient colour presents the strength of the evidence. Generally, RAS compared with conventional surgeries has an overall neutral in yellow and positive in green picture across all forms of outcome except operative time.

Figure 3 Evidence mapping across all targeted procedures. DFS, disease-free survival; DRM, distal resection margin; LOS, length of hospital stays; LN, lymph node; OS, overall survival; PCRM, positive circumferential resection margin; PRM, positive resection margin; R0, margin-negative resection.

Operative time

Overall, operating times are equal or longer for RAS compared with laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery; hence, the orange to red colour spectrum of evidence is presented in figure 3.

In colorectal oncological resection, 28 out of 33 included meta-analysis studies2451 and they all indicated that total operating time on average in the RAS groups was significantly longer than the LS groups. In contrast, in gynaecology, nine out of 12 studies reported insignificant operative time differences for hysterectomy compared with LS and six out of 9 studies compared with open surgery. Within HPB, the mean differences in operative time vary by procedures. In hepatectomy, 14 out of 18 reviews5265 reported that RAS had a significantly longer operative time compared with LS, while all included reviews reported RAS had a significantly longer operative time compared with open surgery. In pancreatectomy, two out of seven reviews65 66 indicated that RAS had a significantly longer operative time compared with LS, two out of four reviews65 67 compared with open surgery. In pancreaticoduodenectomy, one out of three studies68 indicated RAS had a significantly longer operative time compared with the LS approach, and 10 out of 11 studies6776 compared with open surgery. In the field of upper GI, 17 out of 18 reviews7793 reported RAS for gastrectomy had a significantly longer operative time compared with LS, and four out of five also had a significantly longer operative time compared with open surgery.9497 However, there was one study that indicated robotic surgery had a significantly shorter operative time than open surgery.98 This study took results from a network meta-analysis, a technique which compares approaches both directly and indirectly to derive evidence of relative clinical effectiveness. Only one RCT involving RAS was included in the network which may limit the validity of the conclusion.

Estimated blood loss

With the exception of hysterectomy and hepatectomy (both vs laparoscopic surgery), where the evidence for estimated blood loss was mixed, all other evidence for this outcome was in favour of RAS or neutral, as illustrated by the yellow to green spectrum in figure 3.

In the procedure of colorectal oncological resection, 12 out of 29 reviews28 32 34 40 41 43 44 46 49 51 99 100 reported RAS had significantly less blood loss than LS, but the other 17 reviews did not find statistically significant mean differences. However, in hysterectomy, the evidence was inconsistent depending on the comparative procedures. Within the 14 reviews comparing RAS to LS which had data on blood loss, six studies indicated significantly less blood loss,101106 two studies reported significantly more blood loss104 107 but six studies found no significant differences. When RAS was compared with open surgery, all eight reviews found positively that RAS had significantly less blood loss.103104 106111 Within HPB, various effects could be seen depending on the procedure. For hepatectomy, among the articles comparing RAS to LS, mixed evidence was also identified. Five studies reported significantly less blood loss55112115 while another four studies52 53 59 64 indicated a contrasting result in favour of LS. But when comparing to open surgery, five studies59113 116118 indicated RAS was associated with significantly less blood loss while the other four studies found no significant differences. For pancreatectomy, three reviews reported RAS had significantly less blood loss than LS,119121 and three out of four reviews67 119 122 reported RAS had significantly less blood loss than open surgery. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, two reviews identified RAS had significantly less blood loss than LS,75 123 and all reviews indicated the result in favour of RAS compared with open surgery.6776119 122 124 In respect of gastrectomy, 16 out of 20 included studies788993 95 125 126 showed that RAS had significantly less blood loss compared with LS, while all reviews reported RAS had significantly less blood loss than open surgery.778294

Conversion rate

Identified evidence across all procedures showed either positive or neutral results in the conversion rate for RAS compared with LS, green to yellow is presented in figure 3.

Regarding colorectal oncological resection, 26 out of 35 included reviews253033 reported that RAS had significantly lower chances of conversion to open surgery compared with LS. In hysterectomy, three indicated RAS had significantly lower rates than LS,101 103 106 and the other three reviews presented no significance. In respect of HPB, five of 20 included reviews indicated robotic hepatectomy had significantly lower conversion rates than LS.54 58 112 115 For pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, all nine reviews suggested significantly lower conversion rates to open surgery than LS.6668 74 119 121 129132 However, in gastrectomy, no significant conversion rate differences could be found from the included 13 out of 18 reviews.

Length of hospital stay

Identified evidence across all procedures showed that RAS compared with LS or open surgery had an equivalent or shorter duration of hospitalisation; hence, the green to yellow colour spectrum of evidence is presented in figure 3.

Among the included reviews of colorectal oncology surgery, 16 out of 37 articles2832 3436 39 40 44 reported RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospital stays than LS. For hysterectomy, 10 out of 13 studies101104106 reported RAS had significantly shorter hospital stays than LS. Compared with open surgery, RAS also had a significantly shorter length of hospital stays.103106111 In the field of HPB, only two studies for hepatectomy indicated RAS had a significantly shorter length of hospital stay than LS while the other 19 studies did not.112 115 Eight out of nine52 57 59 62 113 117 118 139 included studies showed significantly shorter duration than open surgery. Among the included systematic reviews for pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, six studies65 119 129 130 140 141 reported RAS had a significantly shorter length of hospital stay than LS and almost all studies showed a significantly shorter length of hospital stay than open surgery.6567 68 7074 76 119 122 124 142 As for gastrectomy, five out of 18 reviews84 87 88 92 143 found RAS had a significantly shorter length of hospital stay than LS, and two out of four reviews94 96 indicated RAS had significantly shorter stay compared with open approach.

Postoperative complications

For postoperative complications among all procedures, identified evidence for comparing RAS to LS tend to be neutral, while comparing RAS to open surgery tend to be positive as illustrated in the green to yellow colour spectrum in figure 3.

Among the identified reviews of colorectal oncology resection, seven out of 30 articles34 36 43 46 50 134 144 showed that RAS in postoperative complication results were significant compared with LS. In hysterectomy, only one study found RAS had a significantly lower postoperative complication than LS,137 while five out of eight studies were in favour of RAS than an open approach.103 106 107 109 111 In respect of HPB including hepatectomy, pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, no significant difference in postoperative complication rate was found compared with LS. Some positive evidence when RAS was compared with open surgery: six out of 11 reviews for hepatectomy,52 57 59 113 117 118 two out of five reviews for pancreatectomy65 67 and six out of eight reviews for pancreaticoduodenectomy.67 68 72 74 76 142 For gastrectomy, five out of 1884 85 87 89 145 found RAS had significant differences in postoperative complication rates compared with LS, and only one compared with open surgery.96

Other clinical outcomes

There were other important outcomes identified among the selective procedures such as reoperation and readmission presented in figure 3. It is noted that there was various evidence identified in outcomes of readmission across all selective procedures when RAS compared with LS. Some procedures reported on postoperative mortality.7879 81 98 146148

Procedure-specific postoperative outcomes were also reported. For example, colorectal resection and gastrectomy had data on outcomes of first flatus,3235 39 50 81 84 85 8992 98 pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy on outcomes of pancreatic fistula74 76 149 and bile leak.150 Colorectal resection had reported urinary outcomes and sexual function151156 and other outcomes such as ileus and anastomotic leak.156158 More details for other clinical outcomes of the included systematic reviews can be found in online supplemental file 5.

Oncological outcomes

Different oncological outcomes were reported including the number of lymph node yield and resection-related outcomes (distal resection margin, positive circumferential resection margin, positive resection margin and margin-negative resection). Mix evidence in oncological outcomes was found across all procedures, especially when RAS compared with LS or open surgery, with a brown colour in the spectrum presented in figure 3. For example, lymph node yield in hysterectomy, RAS compared with open surgery had one study with a significant negative outcome,103 three with positive outcomes107 136 137 and four with neutral. One study also reported para-aortic lymph nodes.159 In gastrectomy, RAS compared with LS also found eight with significant negative outcomes,78 79 81 84 86 88 93 125 two with positive88 90 and seven with insignificant outcomes. In pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, RAS compared with LS had one out of 66six and two out of four reviews123 132 had negative significance. Other oncological outcome was used, for example, completeness of total mesorectum excision.160 More details can be reviewed in online supplemental file 5.

Long–term outcomes

Some reviews comparing RAS to LS reported overall survival and disease-free survival outcomes. In most of the studies, identified evidence was neutral with the yellow colour spectrum presented in figure 3, except one study showing RAS compared with open surgery had significantly longer 3-year overall survival in hysterectomy.109

Quality of included reviews and overlap management

Figure 4 displays that the quality of the systematic reviews was generally judged low or critically low across all procedures, using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal tool guidance.21 Our assessment identified the critical flaw domain that the source of their primary studies does not impact quality, but poor management for risk of bias and publication bias does.

Figure 4 Quality assessment of systematic reviews in procedures of interest.

Regarding overlap management, the CCA value for colorectal oncological surgery is 6.4%, which is considered a moderate overlap. For hysterectomy is 3.3% which is considered just slight overlaps. For hepatectomy, pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, their CCA values are 13.62%, 17.6% and 22.73%, respectively considered as high and very high overlap. For gastrectomy with a CCA value of 8.42%, it is moderate. Given this level of overlap, we were aware of the risk of double-counting of individual studies within systematic reviews that would potentially impact on result and interpreted the evidence carefully.

Discussion

The review offers an overview of the clinical outcomes of RAS and presents a summary of the clinical effectiveness evidence base to support the decision makers in optimising the utilisation of this technology.

We found RAS operative time was longer across all procedures. RAS had less estimated blood loss compared with open, but there was mixed evidence in hysterectomy and hepatectomy compared with LS. For conversion rate and length of stay, all the evidence indicated RAS had a lower conversion rate and shorter length of stay whether compared with LS or open. RAS had lower postoperative complications compared with open surgery, but we found no significant difference compared with LS. Across surgical procedures, we found the evidence is more positive when RAS is compared with an open approach.

A broad pattern of at least equivalent clinical outcomes of RAS was identified except for operative time. Longer operative time may be a temporary phenomenon because RAS is a relatively new technology which has a steep learning curve for individual surgeons and the whole support team. We recognise that the primary studies from the included systematic reviews covered RCTs could be quite dated, and observational studies and the different specialties which were the focus of our review are at different phases of adoption of RAS. Operative time with RAS may improve over time as the whole surgical and support team becomes more familiar with the technology.161164 In urology, where RAS is more established, evidence from large observational studies of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy shows a consistent decline in operative time and console time after overcoming the learning curve followed by a near-constant phase.165 One study, also from urology, reported that surgeons with a higher caseload exhibited improved operative time compared with general caseload (266 min vs 240 min, p<0.05).166

A recent overview of reviews for RAS looked at multiple procedures (radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, thoracic surgery (lobectomy and thymectomy), colorectal resection, nephrectomy, gastric and HPB procedures) and found, as we did, that RAS generally had a longer operative time.10 It also found shorter operative time in hysterectomy for endometrial cancer and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass compared with LS. This may be because the review only looked at SRs including RCTs, whereas our review has included a broader range of SRs which incorporated evidence from observational studies. We found shorter operative time in gastrectomy compared with LS but this finding was from a single network meta-analysis including a single RCT.98 Another overview of reviews which focused on a single procedure, total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, also found that RAS had a significantly longer operative time than LS and open surgery.167 Another two overview reviews for gastric cancer indicated that patients treated with RAS had significantly less estimated blood loss and shorter time to resumption of oral intake but prolonged operating time than patients undergoing LS.168 169 In our overview, we also found RAS had significantly less estimated blood loss and a shorter time to resumption of oral intake than LS and open surgery in gastrectomy.

This finding was consistent with another overview of SRs.168 Findings of poor quality mainly relate to reviewers’ failure to explicitly deal with the bias inherent in real-world evidence. However, real-world evidence is critical in the evaluation of surgical techniques as randomisation is often difficult or impossible and randomised trial participants and surgeons may not be representative of the full population.

Our review is the first to summarise the full body of evidence of clinical outcomes and then further examine a number of specialties where there is still equipoise. This review is particularly relevant at the present time due to significant RAS expansion across non-urological specialties. We developed a novel evidence map with the concept of a colour spectrum to present the strength of evidence and its orientation. This study allows readers to capture both a broad perspective of the evidence landscape and in-depth information on the clinical effectiveness evidence. The results from this overview are likely to be generalisable to all countries as the SRs included studies from a broad range of settings. Although there would be a potential risk of bias when an SR included non-randomised studies, our AMSTAR-2 assessment has covered the item of risk of bias in each SR. The limitation of this overview review was that it adopted an existing search strategy supported by a two-stage selection process and focused on a selective number of procedures, given our research aim. It could have been more comprehensive.

Our findings have different implications for different categories of stakeholders. For patients, our results suggest that it is safe to move to RAS for all procedures examined, with outcomes equivalent or superior to traditional surgical methods. However, caution is advised for new procedures, as the first procedures chosen for RAS may have been the most suitable. For surgeons and other clinicians, although operative times are generally longer, they can be reassured about patient outcomes, and the presence of RAS may bring other benefits. These benefits include the attraction and retention of surgeons, the enhancement of their skill sets and the ability to work longer without fatigue or work longer before retirement. For healthcare providers, the use of RAS may bring the benefit of extending MIS to a larger proportion of patients. Where the uptake of LS has been low, perhaps due to technical difficulty, RAS may be more attractive to surgical teams.3 170 Previous research has investigated the scalability of MIS, indicating that RAS rapidly substitutes both open and laparoscopic surgery over time, resulting in a higher proportion of MIS overall.170 171RAS was initially adopted for urological procedures. However, the limited operational days of surgical hardware may prompt hospitals to cross-specialty utilisation for optimal return on investment. A UK NHS study from 2000 to 2018 highlights RAS substituting incumbent technologies and expanding into diverse surgical specialties.170 One study showed the proportion of hospitals and surgeons performing robotic surgery for selective procedures (including inguinal hernia repair colectomy, etc) increased from 3.1% in the first year to 13.1% in the fourth year after the implementation of surgical robots, leading to a trend towards less laparoscopic surgeries (−1.9%) being performed.171 Another example where LS expansion could be considered to have stalled in the UK is laparoscopic colonic surgery. Rates of open colorectal cancer surgery remain between 30% and 40% and of those receiving laparoscopic resection, conversion to open surgery occurs in 10% in England and Wales.172 Once the investment in RAS has been made, there may also be a higher level of institutional buy-in to extending its use, increasing the total proportion of patients being treated in a minimally invasive manner. The main concern may be around operative time. It might be a short-term phenomenon akin to a learning curve and might change over time as teams get used to new equipment. Alternatively, longer operative time could be a necessary disadvantage of a more complex set of equipment. Accordingly, other concerns for healthcare providers include the real costs of longer operative time, whether fewer procedures are being done and waiting lists are growing and whether higher prices charged for procedures compensate for the longer operative time.

In conclusion, the evidence suggests that RAS is a safe and effective alternative to LS and open surgery, with the potential to improve outcomes and enhance the capabilities of surgeons and healthcare providers and a particular opportunity to increase the proportion of minimally-invasive approaches. However, given the higher capital and running costs of the technology (ie, purchase of the robot, maintenance costs and the costs of disposables) and the longer operative times associated with its use, there is a need for careful consideration of its cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to fully evaluate the value of these improvements in outcomes and to assess whether they outweigh the cost implications of the technology. Only through rigorous evaluation can we ensure that RAS is used in the most effective and sustainable manner possible after the initial investment, for the benefit of patients, surgeons and healthcare systems as a whole.

supplementary material

10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076750 online supplemental file 1

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Health Improvement Scotland for providing a developed search strategy for this manuscript. We also thank Dr Charles Maxwell-Armstrong for reviewing an early draft and giving feedback.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Review Process File
16 09 2024

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076750).

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Ethics approval: Not applicable.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.
==== Refs
References

1 Siddaiah-Subramanya M Tiang KW Nyandowe M A new era of minimally invasive surgery: progress and development of major technical innovations in general surgery over the last decade Surg J (N Y) 2017 3 e163 6 10.1055/s-0037-1608651 29134202
2 Investor Overview 2022 Intuitive ESG report 2022 Available https://isrg.intuitive.com/
3 Maynou L Mehtsun WT Serra-Sastre V et al Patterns of adoption of robotic radical prostatectomy in the United States and England Health Serv Res 2021 56 Suppl 3 1441 61 10.1111/1475-6773.13706 34350592
4 McCulloch P Feinberg J Philippou Y et al Progress in clinical research in surgery and IDEAL Lancet 2018 392 88 94 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30102-8 29361334
5 Paul S McCulloch P Sedrakyan A Robotic surgery: revisiting “no innovation without evaluation.” BMJ 2013 346 bmj.f1573 10.1136/bmj.f1573 23479593
6 Broholm M Onsberg Hansen I Rosenberg J Limited evidence for robot-assisted surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2016 26 117 23 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000248 26766316
7 Dahm P Sedrakyan A McCulloch P Application of the IDEAL framework to robotic urologic surgery Eur Urol 2014 65 849 51 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.003 24252883
8 Abrishami P Boer A Horstman K Understanding the adoption dynamics of medical innovations: Affordances of the da Vinci robot in the Netherlands Soc Sci Med 2014 117 125 33 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.046 25063968
9 Abrishami P Boer A Horstman K When the evidence basis breeds controversies: exploring the value profile of robotic surgery beyond the early introduction phase Med Care Res Rev 2020 77 596 608 10.1177/1077558719832797 30902036
10 Muaddi H Hafid ME Choi WJ et al Clinical outcomes of robotic surgery compared to conventional surgical approaches (laparoscopic or open) Ann Surg 2021 273 467 73 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003915 32398482
11 Day EK Galbraith NJ Ward HJT et al Volume-outcome relationship in intra-abdominal robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review J Robot Surg 2023 17 811 26 10.1007/s11701-022-01461-2 36315379
12 Pollock M Fernandes RM Becker LA et al Chapter V: overviews of reviews Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 2020
13 Gates M Gates A Pieper D et al Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement BMJ 2022 378 e070849 10.1136/bmj-2022-070849 35944924
14 Toma M McAlister FA Bialy L et al Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials JAMA 2006 295 1281 7 10.1001/jama.295.11.1281 16537738
15 Morrison A Polisena J Husereau D et al The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012 28 138 44 10.1017/S0266462312000086 22559755
16 Bramer WM Giustini D de Jonge GB et al De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote J Med Libr Assoc 2016 104 240 3 10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014 27366130
17 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. In: NICE process and methods 2014
18 Sekhon M Cartwright M Francis JJ Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework BMC Health Serv Res 2017 17 88 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8 28126032
19 Q2 investor presentation n.d. Available https://isrg.gcs-web.com/static-files/7b0470fb-cfd2-456a-b6eb-24af76d68f6d
20 Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM et al The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 372 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057
21 Shea BJ Reeves BC Wells G et al AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both BMJ 2017 358 j4008 10.1136/bmj.j4008 28935701
22 Pieper D Antoine S-L Mathes T et al Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview J Clin Epidemiol 2014 67 368 75 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007 24581293
23 Lunny C Pieper D Thabet P et al Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 2021 21 140 10.1186/s12874-021-01269-y 34233615
24 Eltair M Hajibandeh S Hajibandeh S et al Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision in management of rectal cancer Int J Colorectal Dis 2020 35 1423 38 10.1007/s00384-020-03655-2 32556460
25 Gavriilidis P Wheeler J Spinelli A et al Robotic vs laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancers: has a paradigm change occurred? A systematic review by updated meta-analysis Colorectal Dis 2020 22 1506 17 10.1111/codi.15084 32333491
26 Huang Y-J Kang Y-N Huang Y-M et al Effects of laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An update systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Asian J Surg 2019 42 657 66 10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.11.007 30609955
27 Li X Wang T Yao L et al The safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review Medicine (Baltimore) 2017 96 e7585 10.1097/MD.0000000000007585 28723798
28 Ng KT Tsia AKV Chong VYL Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis with trial sequential analysis World J Surg 2019 43 1146 61 10.1007/s00268-018-04896-7 30610272
29 Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer 2018 32 10.21873/invivo.11283
30 Pezzolla AM Francesco Paolo P Fernando P et al Robotic versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Ann Surg 2018 267 1034 46 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002523 28984644
31 Sheng S Zhao T Wang X Comparison of robot-assisted surgery, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: A network meta-analysis Medicine (Baltimore) 2018 97 e11817 10.1097/MD.0000000000011817 30142771
32 Simillis CL Sarah TN Christos K et al Open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis Ann Surg 2019 270 59 68 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003227 30720507
33 Sun X-Y Xu L Lu J-Y et al Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2019 28 135 42 10.1080/13645706.2018.1498358 30688139
34 Cui Y Li C Xu Z et al Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic operation in anus-preserving rectal cancer: A meta-analysis Ther Clin Risk Manag 2017 13 1247 57 10.2147/TCRM.S142758 29026312
35 Jones K Qassem MG Sains P et al Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial World J Gastrointest Oncol 2018 10 449 64 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i11.449 30487956
36 Wang X Cao G Mao W et al Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis J Can Res Ther 2020 16 979 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_533_18
37 Butterworth JW Butterworth WA Meyer J et al A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted transabdominal total mesorectal excision and transanal total mesorectal excision: which approach offers optimal short-term outcomes for mid-to-low rectal adenocarcinoma? Tech Coloproctol 2021 25 1183 98 10.1007/s10151-021-02515-7 34562160
38 Genova P Pantuso G Cipolla C et al Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Langenbecks Arch Surg 2021 406 1317 39 10.1007/s00423-020-01985-x 32902707
39 Safiejko K Tarkowski R Koselak M et al Robotic-assisted vs. standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 19,731 patients Cancers (Basel) 2021 14 180 10.3390/cancers14010180 35008344
40 Zhang J Qi X Yi F et al Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between da vinci robotic and laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: A meta-analysis Front Surg 2021 8 752009 10.3389/fsurg.2021.752009 34926566
41 Zhu QL Xu X Pan ZJ Comparison of clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy for right colon tumor: A systematic review and meta-analysis Medicine (Baltimore) 2021 100 e27002 10.1097/MD.0000000000027002 34414989
42 Bianchi G Gavriilidis P Martínez-Pérez A et al Robotic multiquadrant colorectal procedures: A single-center experience and A systematic review of the literature Front Surg 2022 9 991704 10.3389/fsurg.2022.991704 36061042
43 Solaini L Bocchino A Avanzolini A et al Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Colorectal Dis 2022 37 1497 507 10.1007/s00384-022-04194-8 35650261
44 Tschann P Szeverinski P Weigl MP et al Short- and long-term outcome of laparoscopic- versus robotic-Assisted right colectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis J Clin Med 2022 11 2387 10.3390/jcm11092387 35566512
45 Flynn J Larach JT Kong JCH et al Operative and oncological outcomes after robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis ANZ J Surg 2023 93 510 21 10.1111/ans.18075 36214098
46 Huang Z Huang S Huang Y et al Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Front Oncol 2023 13 10.3389/fonc.2023.1273378
47 Khajeh E Aminizadeh E Dooghaie Moghadam A et al Outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer compared with open and laparoscopic surgery Cancers (Basel) 2023 15 839 10.3390/cancers15030839 36765797
48 Yang L Fang C Bi T et al Efficacy of robot-assisted vs. laparoscopy surgery in the treatment of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2023 47 S2210-7401(23)00101-8 10.1016/j.clinre.2023.102176
49 Yao Q Sun Q-N Ren J et al Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2023 149 15207 17 10.1007/s00432-023-05228-6 37580404
50 Zheng J Zhao S Chen W et al Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Tech Coloproctol 2023 27 521 35 10.1007/s10151-023-02821-2 37184773
51 Zheng J-C Zhao S Chen W et al Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques 2023 18 20 30 10.5114/wiitm.2022.120960
52 Ciria R Berardi G Alconchel F et al The impact of robotics in liver surgery: A worldwide systematic review and short‐term outcomes meta‐analysis on 2,728 cases J Hepato Biliary Pancreat 2022 29 181 97 10.1002/jhbp.869
53 Hu L Yao L Li X et al Effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver neoplasms: A meta-analysis of retrospective studies Asian J Surg 2018 41 401 16 10.1016/j.asjsur.2017.07.001 28912048
54 Hu Y Guo K Xu J et al Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis Asian J Surg 2021 44 615 28 10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.12.016 33468382
55 Kamarajah SK Bundred J Manas D et al Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic liver resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis Scand J Surg 2021 110 290 300 10.1177/1457496920925637 32762406
56 Wang J-M Li J-F Yuan G-D et al Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis Medicine (Balt) 2021 100 e25648 10.1097/MD.0000000000025648
57 Wong DJ Wong MJ Choi GH et al Systematic review and meta‐analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy ANZ J Surg 2019 89 165 70 10.1111/ans.14690 29943881
58 Zhang L Yuan Q Xu Y et al Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis PLoS ONE 2020 15 e0240593 10.1371/journal.pone.0240593 33048989
59 Zhao Z Yin Z Li M et al State of the art in robotic liver surgery: a meta-analysis Updates Surg 2021 73 977 87 10.1007/s13304-020-00906-3 33146887
60 Aboudou T Li M Zhang Z et al Laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis J Clin Med 2022 11 19 5831 10.3390/jcm11195831
61 Hajibandeh S Hajibandeh S Dosis A et al Level 2a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy: a meta-analysis Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022 407 479 89 10.1007/s00423-021-02366-8 34698926
62 Lincango Naranjo EP Garces-Delgado E Siepmann T et al Robotic living donor right hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis J Clin Med 2022 11 2603 10.3390/jcm11092603 35566727
63 Rahimli M Perrakis A Andric M et al Does robotic liver surgery enhance R0 results in liver malignancies during minimally invasive liver surgery?—A systematic review and meta-analysis Cancers (Basel) 2022 14 3360 10.3390/cancers14143360 35884421
64 Guan R Chen Y Yang K et al Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis Asian J Surg 2019 42 19 31 10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.05.008 30170946
65 Niu X Yu B Yao L et al Comparison of surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic and open resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis Asian J Surg 2019 42 32 45 10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.08.011 30337121
66 Mavrovounis GD Perivoliotis A Symeonidis K et al Laparoscopic versus robotic peripheral pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis J BUON 2020 25 2456 75 33277870
67 Zhao W Liu C Li S et al Safety and efficacy for robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis Surg Oncol 2018 27 468 78 10.1016/j.suronc.2018.06.001 30217304
68 Aiolfi A Lombardo F Bonitta G et al Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy Updates Surg 2021 73 909 22 10.1007/s13304-020-00916-1 33315230
69 Podda M Gerardi C Di Saverio S et al Robotic-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with benign and malignant periampullary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes Surg Endosc 2020 34 2390 409 10.1007/s00464-020-07460-4 32072286
70 Shin SH Kim Y-J Song KB et al Totally laparoscopic or robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy versus open surgery for periampullary neoplasms: separate systematic reviews and meta-analyses Surg Endosc 2017 31 3459 74 10.1007/s00464-016-5395-7 28039645
71 Yan Q Xu L Ren Z et al Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of short-term outcomes Surg Endosc 2020 34 501 9 10.1007/s00464-019-07084-3 31848756
72 Zhang W Zhang jian wei Che X Safety and efficacy for robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers In Review Preprint 10.21203/rs.3.rs-40570/v1
73 Da Dong X Felsenreich DM Gogna S et al Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy provides better histopathological outcomes as compared to its open counterpart: a meta-analysis Sci Rep 2021 11 3774 10.1038/s41598-021-83391-x 33580139
74 Zhang W Huang Z Zhang J et al Safety and efficacy of robot-assisted versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of multiple worldwide centers Updates Surg 2021 73 893 907 10.1007/s13304-020-00912-5 33159662
75 Kabir T Tan HL Syn NL et al Outcomes of laparoscopic, robotic, and open pancreatoduodenectomy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies Surgery 2022 171 476 89 10.1016/j.surg.2021.07.020 34454723
76 Fu Y Qiu J Yu Y et al Meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in all patients and pancreatic cancer patients Front Surg 2022 9 989065 10.3389/fsurg.2022.989065 36303857
77 Qiu H Ai J-H Shi J et al Effectiveness and safety of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis J Can Res Ther 2019 15 1450 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_798_18
78 Bobo Z Xin W Jiang L et al Robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of prospective observational studies Surg Endosc 2019 33 1033 48 10.1007/s00464-018-06648-z 30719561
79 Chen K Pan Y Zhang B et al Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis BMC Surg 2017 17 93 10.1186/s12893-017-0290-2 28836986
80 Guerrini GP Esposito G Magistri P et al Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: The largest meta-analysis Int J Surg 2020 82 210 28 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.07.053 32800976
81 Ma J Li X Zhao S et al Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis World J Surg Oncol 2020 18 306 10.1186/s12957-020-02080-7 33234134
82 Wang Y Zhao X Song Y et al A systematic review and meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer Medicine (Balt) 2017 96 e8797 10.1097/MD.0000000000008797
83 Wang YZ Song X Cai Y et al A meta-analysis of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopically assisted gastrectomy Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 2017 31 S329
84 Feng Q Ma H Qiu J et al Comparison of long-term and perioperative outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of PSM and RCT studies Front Oncol 2021 11 759509 10.3389/fonc.2021.759509 35004278
85 Zhang X Zhang W Feng Z et al Comparison of short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques 2021 16 443 54 10.5114/wiitm.2021.105731
86 Zhang Z Miao L Ren Z et al Robotic bariatric surgery for the obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis Surg Endosc 2021 35 2440 56 10.1007/s00464-020-08283-z 33881624
87 Baral S Arawker MH Sun Q et al Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A mega meta-analysis Front Surg 2022 9 895976 10.3389/fsurg.2022.895976 35836604
88 Gong S Li X Tian H et al Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Surg Endosc 2022 36 2734 48 10.1007/s00464-021-08994-x 35020057
89 Jin T Liu H-D Yang K et al Effectiveness and safety of robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of 12,401 gastric cancer patients Updates Surg 2022 74 267 81 10.1007/s13304-021-01176-3 34655427
90 Sun T Wang Y Liu Y et al Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies and randomized controlled trials BMC Surg 2022 22 427 10.1186/s12893-022-01881-9 36517776
91 Iacovazzo C Buonanno P Massaro M et al Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review and metanalysis of intra- and post-operative complications J Pers Med 2023 13 1297 10.3390/jpm13091297 37763064
92 Yu X Zhu L Zhang Y et al Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in patients with obesity: systematic review and meta-analysis Front Oncol 2023 13 1158804 10.3389/fonc.2023.1158804 37274257
93 Magouliotis DE Tasiopoulou VS Sioka E et al Robotic versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for morbid obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis OBES SURG 2017 27 245 53 10.1007/s11695-016-2444-1 27815863
94 Caruso S Patriti A Roviello F et al Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis World J Clin Oncol 2017 8 273 84 10.5306/wjco.v8.i3.273 28638798
95 Yang Y Wang G He J et al Robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2017 143 105 14 10.1007/s00432-016-2240-2 27650932
96 Chen L Wang Q Liu Y et al A meta-analysis of robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy in gastric cancer treatment Asian J Surg 2022 45 698 706 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.07.069 34366190
97 Davey MG Temperley HC O’Sullivan NJ et al Minimally invasive and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials Ann Surg Oncol 2023 30 5544 57 10.1245/s10434-023-13654-6 37261563
98 Aiolfi A Lombardo F Matsushima K et al Systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic distal gastrectomy for early and locally advanced gastric cancer Surgery 2021 170 942 51 10.1016/j.surg.2021.04.014 34023140
99 Ma S Chen Y Chen Y et al Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted right colectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis Asian J Surg 2019 42 589 98 10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.11.002 30503268
100 Lee SH Kim DH Lim SW Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Colorectal Dis 2018 33 1741 53 10.1007/s00384-018-3145-0 30187156
101 Ind T Laios A Hacking M et al A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Med Robot 2017 13 e1851 10.1002/rcs.1851 28762635
102 Prodromidou A Spartalis E Tsourouflis G et al Robotic versus laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Robotic Surg 2020 14 679 86 10.1007/s11701-020-01042-1
103 Wang J Li X Wu H et al A meta-analysis of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer: Comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy Dis Markers 2020 2020 2503753 10.1155/2020/2503753 32454902
104 Kampers J Gerhardt E Sibbertsen P et al Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy Arch Gynecol Obstet 2022 306 295 314 10.1007/s00404-021-06248-8 34625835
105 Huang J Tan Z Wu W et al Effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on postoperative wound infection in patients with cervical cancer: A meta-analysis Int Wound J 2023 21 e14437 10.1111/iwj.14437 37852784
106 Lenfant L Canlorbe G Belghiti J et al Robotic-assisted benign hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic, vaginal, and open surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Robot Surg 2023 17 2647 62 10.1007/s11701-023-01724-6 37856058
107 Liu Z Li X Tian S et al Superiority of robotic surgery for cervical cancer in comparison with traditional approaches: A systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Surg 2017 40 145 54 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.062 28238959
108 Park DA Yun JE Kim SW et al Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO) 2017 43 994 1002 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.07.017 27546015
109 Shi C Gao Y Yang Y et al Comparison of efficacy of robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in the treatment of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis World J Surg Onc 2019 17 162 10.1186/s12957-019-1702-9
110 Zhang S-S Ding T Cui Z-H et al Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: A separate meta-analysis of high-quality studies Medicine (Balt) 2019 98 e14171 10.1097/MD.0000000000014171
111 Jin Y-M Liu S-S Chen J et al Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer PLoS ONE 2018 13 e0193033 10.1371/journal.pone.0193033 29554090
112 Coletta D Levi Sandri GB Giuliani G et al Robot‐assisted versus conventional laparoscopic major hepatectomies: Systematic review with meta‐analysis Robot Comp Surg 2021 17 10.1002/rcs.2218
113 Gavriilidis P Roberts KJ Aldrighetti L et al A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis Eur J Surg Oncol 2020 46 1214 24 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.03.227 32312592
114 Gao F Zhao X Xie Q et al Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies Int J Surg 2024 110 1126 38 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000857 37924495
115 Mao B Zhu S Li D et al n.d. Comparison of safety and effectiveness between robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Surg 109 4333 46 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000750
116 Yeow M Soh S Starkey G et al A systematic review and network meta-analysis of outcomes after open, mini-laparotomy, hybrid, totally laparoscopic, and robotic living donor right hepatectomy Surgery 2022 172 741 50 10.1016/j.surg.2022.03.042 35644687
117 Papadopoulou K Dorovinis P Kykalos S et al Short-term outcomes after robotic versus open liver resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis J Gastrointest Canc 2023 54 237 46 10.1007/s12029-022-00810-6
118 Xuea Q Wua J Leia Z et al Robot-assisted versus open hepatectomy for liver tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis J Chin Med Assoc 2023 86 282 8 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000870 36622784
119 Gavriilidis P Roberts KJ Sutcliffe RP Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic vs open distal pancreatectomy. A systematic review and network meta-analysis HPB (Oxford) 2019 21 1268 76 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.04.010 31080086
120 van Ramshorst TME van Bodegraven EA Zampedri P et al Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis including patient subgroups Surg Endosc 2023 37 4131 43 10.1007/s00464-023-09894-y 36781467
121 Di Martino M Caruso R D’Ovidio A et al Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies: Asystematic review and meta‐analysis on costs and perioperative outcome Robotics Computer Surgery 2021 17 10.1002/rcs.2295
122 Zhou J Lv Z Zou H et al Up-to-date comparison of robotic-assisted versus open distal pancreatectomy: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis Medicine (Baltimore) 2020 99 e20435 10.1097/MD.0000000000020435 32501990
123 Ouyang L Zhang J Feng Q et al Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis Front Oncol 2022 12 834382 10.3389/fonc.2022.834382 35280811
124 Multani A Parmar S Dixon E Laparoscopic vs. robotic gastrectomy in patients with situs inversus totalis: A systematic review Minim Invasive Surg 2023 2023 3894561 10.1155/2023/3894561 36909819
125 Li L Zhang W Guo Y et al Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of 7 randomized controlled trials Surg Innov 2019 26 497 504 10.1177/1553350619839853 31081483
126 Phan K Kahlaee HR Kim SH et al Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies Tech Coloproctol 2019 23 221 30 10.1007/s10151-018-1920-0 30623315
127 Oweira H Reissfelder C Elhadedy H et al Robotic colectomy with CME versus laparoscopic colon resection with or without CME for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis annals 2023 105 113 25 10.1308/rcsann.2022.0051
128 Seow W Dudi-Venkata NN Bedrikovetski S et al Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic vs robotic vs transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis Tech Coloproctol 2023 27 345 60 10.1007/s10151-022-02739-1 36508067
129 Kamarajah SK Sutandi N Robinson SR et al Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis HPB (Oxford) 2019 21 1107 18 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.02.020 30962137
130 Guerrini GP Lauretta A Belluco C et al Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an up-to-date meta-analysis BMC Surg 2017 17 105 10.1186/s12893-017-0301-3 29121885
131 Li P Zhang H Chen L et al Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy on perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis Updates Surg 2023 75 7 21 10.1007/s13304-022-01413-3 36378464
132 Kamarajah SK Bundred J Marc OS et al Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur J Surg Oncol 2020 46 6 14 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.08.007 31409513
133 Hoshino N Sakamoto T Hida K et al Difference in surgical outcomes of rectal cancer by study design: meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, case-matched studies, and cohort studies BJS Open 2021 5 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa067
134 An S Kim K Kim MH et al Perioperative probiotics application for preventing postoperative complications in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis Medicina (Kaunas) 2022 58 1644 10.3390/medicina58111644 36422183
135 Ravindra C Igweonu-Nwakile EO Ali S et al Comparison of non-oncological postoperative outcomes following robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resection for colorectal malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis Cureus 2022 14 e27015 10.7759/cureus.27015 35989760
136 Lawrie TA Liu H Lu D et al Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019 2019 CD011422 10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2
137 Marchand G Masoud AT Abdelsattar A et al Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy vs. open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer H S R 2023 8 100109 10.1016/j.hsr.2023.100109
138 Marchand G Taher Masoud A Abdelsattar A et al Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy vs. Robotic assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2023 289 190 202 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.09.002 37690282
139 Machairas N Papaconstantinou D Tsilimigras DI et al Comparison between robotic and open liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes Updates Surg 2019 71 39 48 10.1007/s13304-019-00629-0 30719624
140 Kamarajah SK Bundred JR Marc OS et al A systematic review and network meta-analysis of different surgical approaches for pancreaticoduodenectomy HPB (Oxford) 2020 22 329 39 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.09.016 31676255
141 Rompianesi G Montalti R Ambrosio L et al Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomies: Systematic review and meta-analysis J Pers Med 2021 11 552 10.3390/jpm11060552 34199314
142 Peng L Lin S Li Y et al Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy Surg Endosc 2017 31 3085 97 10.1007/s00464-016-5371-2 27928665
143 Zhang Z Zhang X Liu Y et al Meta-analysis of the efficacy of Da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic distal subtotal gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer Medicine (Baltimore) 2021 100 e27012 10.1097/MD.0000000000027012 34449473
144 Flynn J Larach JT Kong JCH et al Patient-related functional outcomes after robotic-assisted rectal surgery compared with a laparoscopic approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis Dis Colon Rectum 2022 65 1191 204 10.1097/DCR.0000000000002535 35853177
145 Ali M Wang Y Ding J et al Postoperative outcomes in robotic gastric resection compared with laparoscopic gastric resection in gastric cancer: A meta‐analysis and systemic review H Sci Rep 2022 5 e746 10.1002/hsr2.746
146 Behbehani S Suarez-Salvador E Buras M et al Mortality rates in laparoscopic and robotic gynecologic oncology surgery: A systemic review and meta-analysis J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019 26 1253 67 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.06.017 31279137
147 Behbehani S Suarez-Salvador E Buras M et al Mortality rates in benign laparoscopic and robotic gynecologic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2020 27 603 12 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.10.005 31627007
148 Liao G Zhao Z Khan M et al Comparative analysis of robotic gastrectomy and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer in terms of their long-term oncological outcomes: A meta-analysis of 3410 gastric cancer patients World J Surg Oncol 2019 17 86 10.1186/s12957-019-1628-2 31122260
149 Wang K Dong S Zhang W et al Surgical methods influence on the risk of anastomotic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Surg Endosc 2023 37 3380 97 10.1007/s00464-022-09832-4 36627536
150 Kornaropoulos M Moris D Beal EW et al Total robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review of the literature Surg Endosc 2017 31 4382 92 10.1007/s00464-017-5523-z 28389798
151 Fleming CA Cullinane C Lynch N et al Urogenital function following robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: meta-analysis Br J Surg 2021 108 128 37 10.1093/bjs/znaa067 33711141
152 Tang X Wang Z Wu X et al Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer in male urogenital function preservation, a meta-analysis World J Surg Oncol 2018 16 196 10.1186/s12957-018-1499-y 30285780
153 Wee IJY Kuo L Ngu JC Urological and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review, meta‐analysis and meta‐regression Robotics Computer Surgery 2021 17 1 8 10.1002/rcs.2164
154 Yang H Zhou L The urinary and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis Surg Today 2024 54 397 406 10.1007/s00595-023-02671-3 36943447
155 Holmer C Kreis ME Systematic review of robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer Surg Endosc 2018 32 569 81 10.1007/s00464-017-5978-y 29218670
156 Kowalewski KF Seifert L Ali S et al Functional outcomes after laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis Surg Endosc 2021 35 81 95 10.1007/s00464-019-07361-1 32025924
157 Tejedor P Sagias Filippos Flashman K et al The use of robotic or laparoscopic stapler in rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Robotic Surg 2020 14 829 33 10.1007/s11701-020-01126-y
158 Waters PS Cheung FP Peacock O et al Successful patient‐oriented surgical outcomes in roboticvslaparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer – a systematic review Colorectal Dis 2020 22 488 99 10.1111/codi.14822 31400185
159 Nevis IF Vali B Higgins C et al Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancers: a systematic review J Robot Surg 2017 11 1 16 10.1007/s11701-016-0621-9 27424111
160 Milone M Manigrasso M Velotti N et al Completeness of total mesorectum excision of laparoscopic versus robotic surgery: a review with a meta-analysis Int J Colorectal Dis 2019 34 983 91 10.1007/s00384-019-03307-0 31056732
161 Bach C Miernik A Schönthaler M Training in robotics: The learning curve and contemporary concepts in training Arab J Urol 2014 12 58 61 10.1016/j.aju.2013.10.005 26019925
162 Khadhouri S Miller C Fowler S et al The British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) radical prostatectomy audit 2014/2015 - an update on current practice and outcomes by centre and surgeon case-volume BJU Int 2018 121 886 92 10.1111/bju.14156 29388311
163 Taylor AS Lee B Rawal B et al Impact of fellowship training on robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: benchmarking perioperative safety and outcomes J Robotic Surg 2015 9 125 30 10.1007/s11701-015-0498-z
164 Arquillière J Dubois A Rullier E et al Learning curve for robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre, prospective study Colorectal Dis 2023 25 1863 77 10.1111/codi.16695 37525421
165 Tamhankar A Spencer N Hampson A et al Real-time assessment of learning curve for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2020 102 717 25 10.1308/rcsann.2020.0139 32538121
166 Perera S Fernando N O’Brien J et al Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: learning curves and outcomes from an Australian perspective Prostate Int 2023 11 51 7 10.1016/j.prnil.2022.10.002 36910896
167 Yamamoto S Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, open surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An overview of systematic reviews Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2020 4 628 34 10.1002/ags3.12385 33319152
168 Hoshino N Murakami K Hida K et al Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer: an overview of systematic reviews with quality assessment of current evidence Updates Surg 2020 72 573 82 10.1007/s13304-020-00793-8 32415666
169 Marano L Fusario D Savelli V et al Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses Updates Surg 2021 73 1673 89 10.1007/s13304-021-01059-7 34031848
170 Maynou L Pearson G McGuire A et al The diffusion of robotic surgery: Examining technology use in the English NHS Health Policy 2022 126 325 36 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.02.007 35307200
171 Sheetz KH Claflin J Dimick JB Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures JAMA Netw Open 2020 3 e1918911 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18911 31922557
172 NBOCA National bowel cancer audit annual report 2022 2022
