Robot-assisted surgery in thoracic and visceral indications: an updated systematic review.
Nicole Grössmann-WaniekMichaela RiegelneggLucia GassnerClaudia WildPublished in: Surgical endoscopy (2024)
In summary, conclusive assertions on RAS superiority are impeded by inconsistent and insufficient low-quality evidence across various outcomes and procedures. While RAS may offer potential advantages in some surgical areas, healthcare decisions should also take into account the limited quality of evidence, financial implications, and environmental factors. Furthermore, considerations should extend to the ergonomic aspects for maintaining a healthy surgical environment.
Keyphrases
- robot assisted
- minimally invasive
- systematic review
- healthcare
- wild type
- meta analyses
- spinal cord
- quality improvement
- coronary artery bypass
- randomized controlled trial
- surgical site infection
- coronary artery disease
- spinal cord injury
- skeletal muscle
- metabolic syndrome
- acute coronary syndrome
- percutaneous coronary intervention
- weight loss
- human health
- health information
- atrial fibrillation