TYPE OF MANUSCRIPT: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ADVANCES IN ROBOTIC SURGERY IN GENERAL SURGERY - TRENDS, CHALLENGES, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Main Article Content
Keywords
Robotic surgery, Laproscopy, Advanced technology, General surgery, Conventional surgery.
Abstract
Background: Robotic surgery (RS) as a big step forward in less invasive techniques. It combines robotics and engineering to make surgeries more precise, help surgeons avoid fatigue, and lower risks for patients. It's becoming popular in general surgery, but still there is questions about its benefits, cost, and safety when compared to traditional laparoscopic methods.
Objective: In this review, aimed to look at recent trends, outcomes, and challenges related to robotic surgery in general surgery.
Methods: This review conducted a thorough search of literature using databases like PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science to find studies published between January 2015 and March 2025. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines, focusing only on English-language studies that were peer-reviewed. These included clinical trials, cohort studies, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This review also registered on PROSPERO.
Results: seven studies that fit the inclusion criteria. The results show that the use of robotic surgery is increasing, especially for procedures like gallbladder removal, hernia repairs, and surgeries for rectal cancer. Robotic surgery seemed to offer benefits in complex cases, like less blood loss, quicker recovery of bowel function, and shorter hospital stays. However, it didn’t show much advantage over laparoscopy for regular procedures. I also noted that robotic surgeries generally took longer and cost more. There were worries about a steeper learning curve and a slightly higher chance of complications, such as bile duct injuries during gallbladder surgery.
Conclusion: Robotic surgery has potential, especially for complex operations, but it still hasn’t proven to be better than laparoscopy for standard surgeries. Future research should look into the cost-effectiveness, better training methods, and long-term results to improve its use in surgical practices.
References
2. Ballantyne GH. Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2002 Oct;16:1389-402.
3. Hashizume M, Tsugawa K. Robotic surgery and cancer: the present state, problems and future vision. Japanese journal of clinical oncology. 2004 May 1;34(5):227-37.
4. Gumbs AA, De Simone B, Chouillard E. Searching for a better definition of robotic surgery: is it really different from laparoscopy?. Mini-invasive Surgery. 2020 Dec 10;4:N-A.
5. Ballantyne GH, Moll F. The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surgical Clinics. 2003 Dec 1;83(6):1293-304.
6. Marescaux J, Rubino F. The ZEUS robotic system: experimental and clinical applications. Surgical Clinics. 2003 Dec 1;83(6):1305-15.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr Angelin Grace T
Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Swamy Vivekanandha college of Pharmacy.
Nithyasri T
IV Pharm D, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Swamy Vivekanandha college of Pharmacy.
Sonisha N
IV Pharm D, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Swamy Vivekanandha college of Pharmacy.
Amriethaa D P
IV Pharm D, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Swamy Vivekanandha college of Pharmacy.
Zahirah Barvin R
IV Pharm D, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Swamy Vivekanandha college of Pharmacy.
Dr Sujansharma M
Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Swamy Vivekanandha college of Pharmacy.
Dr Dhivyaprasath P
Department of Pharmacy Practice,Swamy Vivekanandha College of Pharmacy. Phone: 9688588833
