The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Efficacy of the Da Vinci Surgical System in Abdominal Surgery Compared With That of Laparoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
In Brief Aim: The main aim of this review was to compare the safety and efficacy of the Da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in different types of abdominal intervention. Summary of Background Data: DVSS is an emerging laparoscopic technology. The surgeon directs the robotic arms of the system through a console by means of hand controls and pedals, making use of a stereoscopic viewing system. DVSS is currently being used in general, urological, gynecologic, and cardiothoracic surgery. Methods: This systematic review analyses the best scientific evidence available regarding the safety and efficacy of DVSS in abdominal surgery. The results found were subjected to meta-analysis whenever possible. Results: Thirty-one studies, 6 of them randomized control trials, involving 2166 patients that compared DVSS and CLS were examined. The procedures undertaken were fundoplication (9 studies, one also examining cholecystectomy), Heller myotomy (3 studies), gastric bypass (4), gastrectomy (2), bariatric surgery (1), cholecystectomy (4), splenectomy (1), colorectal resection (7), and rectopexy (1). DVSS was found to be associated with fewer Heller myotomy-related perforations, a more rapid intestinal recovery time after gastrectomy—and therefore a shorter hospital stay, a shorter hospital stay following cholecystectomy (although the duration of surgery was longer), longer colorectal resection surgery times, and a larger number of conversions to open surgery during gastric bypass. Conclusions: The publications reviewed revealed DVSS to offer certain advantages with respect to Heller myotomy, gastrectomy, and cholecystectomy. However, these results should be interpreted with caution until randomized clinical trials are performed and, with respect to oncologic indications, studies include variables such as survival. In comparison with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the Da Vinci Surgical System was associated with fewer Heller myotomy-related perforations, shorter intestinal recovery time and hospital stay following gastrectomy, a shorter hospital stay and a longer duration of surgery in cholecystectomy, longer colorectal resection surgery times, and more conversions during gastric bypass.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Robotically Assisted vs Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Among Women With Benign Gynecologic Disease
Wright, J. D., Ananth, C. V., Lewin, S. N., Burke, W. M., Lu, Y.-S., Neugut, A. I., Herzog, T. J., & Hershman, D. L. (2013) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.186 · Cited by 573
Medical Robots: Current Systems and Research Directions
Beasley, R. A. (2012) · Journal of Robotics · doi:10.1155/2012/401613 · Cited by 312
Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review
Buia, A., Stockhausen, F., & Hanisch, E. (2015) · World Journal of Methodology · doi:10.5662/wjm.v5.i4.238 · Cited by 266
Metadata
- Authors
- Maeso, S., Reza, M., Mayol, J. A., Blasco, J. A., Guerra, M., Andradas, E., & Plana, M. N.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 252
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 254-262
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2036781419
- Cited by
- 399
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of the Da Vinci Surgical System in Abdominal Surgery Compared With That of Laparoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181e6239e
- The paper
- Maeso, S., Reza, M., Mayol, J. A., Blasco, J. A., Guerra, M., Andradas, E., & Plana, M. N. (2010). Efficacy of the Da Vinci Surgical System in Abdominal Surgery Compared With That of Laparoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181e6239e
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.