Scholarlink

<p>Robotic innovation in gynecologic surgery has expanded beyond established multiport ecosystems toward single-port, modular multi-arm, transvaginal, AI-enabled, and teleoperated platforms. However, available evidence remains fragmented and unsuitable for quantitative synthesis. This systematic review evaluated emerging robotic platforms in gynecologic surgery, focusing on procedure types, outcomes, costs, and learning curves. The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261360389). Eligible studies included clinical studies evaluating emerging robotic platforms in gynecologic surgery. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched on 4 April 2026. After duplicate removal, 408 records were screened, 160 full texts assessed, and 92 studies included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently in duplicate. The 92 studies covered 13 platforms and were mainly retrospective single-center studies. Evidence was most extensive for da Vinci SP and HUGO RAS, with more limited but informative data for Senhance, Versius, hinotori, and KANGDUO. Evidence for other systems consisted mainly of first-in-human, pilot, or feasibility studies. Hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy were the most frequently reported procedures. Overall, perioperative outcomes and short-term safety appeared favorable, despite limited follow-up and heterogeneous outcome definitions. Cost data were mainly available for Senhance and KANGDUO. Learning-curve evidence was strongest for da Vinci SP and HUGO RAS. Risk-of-bias was predominantly moderate. Emerging robotic platforms have demonstrated broad technical feasibility and generally acceptable short-term perioperative safety in selected gynecologic procedures, but current evidence is heterogeneous, observational, and methodologically limited. Rigorous prospective studies, standardized economic analyses, longer follow-up, and learning-curve evaluations are needed before comparative conclusions can be drawn.</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

Emerging robotic platforms in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月22日

查看全文
  • Matteo Bruno,
  • Davide Arrigo,
  • Marco D’Indinosante,
  • Emanuele Perrone,
  • Nicolò Bizzarri,
  • Giovanni Panico,
  • Nicola Macellari,
  • Matteo Figà,
  • Mariano Giménez,
  • Antonello Forgione,
  • Jacques Marescaux,
  • Anna Fagotti,
  • Francesco Fanfani

摘要

Robotic innovation in gynecologic surgery has expanded beyond established multiport ecosystems toward single-port, modular multi-arm, transvaginal, AI-enabled, and teleoperated platforms. However, available evidence remains fragmented and unsuitable for quantitative synthesis. This systematic review evaluated emerging robotic platforms in gynecologic surgery, focusing on procedure types, outcomes, costs, and learning curves. The review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261360389). Eligible studies included clinical studies evaluating emerging robotic platforms in gynecologic surgery. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched on 4 April 2026. After duplicate removal, 408 records were screened, 160 full texts assessed, and 92 studies included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently in duplicate. The 92 studies covered 13 platforms and were mainly retrospective single-center studies. Evidence was most extensive for da Vinci SP and HUGO RAS, with more limited but informative data for Senhance, Versius, hinotori, and KANGDUO. Evidence for other systems consisted mainly of first-in-human, pilot, or feasibility studies. Hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy were the most frequently reported procedures. Overall, perioperative outcomes and short-term safety appeared favorable, despite limited follow-up and heterogeneous outcome definitions. Cost data were mainly available for Senhance and KANGDUO. Learning-curve evidence was strongest for da Vinci SP and HUGO RAS. Risk-of-bias was predominantly moderate. Emerging robotic platforms have demonstrated broad technical feasibility and generally acceptable short-term perioperative safety in selected gynecologic procedures, but current evidence is heterogeneous, observational, and methodologically limited. Rigorous prospective studies, standardized economic analyses, longer follow-up, and learning-curve evaluations are needed before comparative conclusions can be drawn.