Scholarlink

<p>This comprehensive systematic review assesses the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted procedures for acute abdominal emergencies, analyzing data from 27 studies comprising 1142 cases. The investigation specifically examines five critical emergency conditions: complicated appendicitis (representing 32.5% of cases), acute cholecystitis (28.7%), small bowel obstruction (15.2%), perforated peptic ulcers (9.8%), and acute diverticulitis (7.4%). Analysis reveals robotic procedures averaged 152&#xa0;min (± 38) in duration, with an overall conversion rate of 9.1%. Complication rates showed no significant difference from laparoscopic methods (13.2% versus 14.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.21). The data highlight two significant robotic advantages: improved intraoperative hemostasis (85&#xa0;mL versus 120&#xa0;mL average blood loss, <i>p</i> = 0.03) and lower conversion rates among obese patients (11.3% versus 18.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.04). These findings indicate that robotic systems may provide distinct technical benefits for specific emergency scenarios while delivering safety outcomes equivalent to traditional minimally invasive surgery.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Robotic-assisted surgery for acute abdominal emergencies: a systematic review of 1142 cases

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月5日

查看全文
  • Danilo Coco,
  • Silvana Leanza

摘要

This comprehensive systematic review assesses the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted procedures for acute abdominal emergencies, analyzing data from 27 studies comprising 1142 cases. The investigation specifically examines five critical emergency conditions: complicated appendicitis (representing 32.5% of cases), acute cholecystitis (28.7%), small bowel obstruction (15.2%), perforated peptic ulcers (9.8%), and acute diverticulitis (7.4%). Analysis reveals robotic procedures averaged 152 min (± 38) in duration, with an overall conversion rate of 9.1%. Complication rates showed no significant difference from laparoscopic methods (13.2% versus 14.7%, p = 0.21). The data highlight two significant robotic advantages: improved intraoperative hemostasis (85 mL versus 120 mL average blood loss, p = 0.03) and lower conversion rates among obese patients (11.3% versus 18.6%, p = 0.04). These findings indicate that robotic systems may provide distinct technical benefits for specific emergency scenarios while delivering safety outcomes equivalent to traditional minimally invasive surgery.