Comment on “Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopy for colorectal endometriosis: a systematic review and meta‑analysis”

Wajid Memon, Rachana Mehta, Ranjana Sah
Journal of robotic surgery · 2025 · vol. 19(1) , pp. 268 · doi:10.1007/s11701-025-02442-x · PMID:40467955 · W4411021354
review OA: closed CC0
Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-12 ⓘ

This paper is a comment on a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis comparing robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopy for colorectal endometriosis.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-12 · read from full text ⓘ

This paper is a comment on the previously published systematic review and meta-analysis comparing perioperative outcomes between robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopy for colorectal endometriosis. It does not report original datasets, and the authors state that no patient data were collected or analyzed, with no funding and no competing interests declared. The main limitation explicitly evident from the available text is that it provides no new empirical results beyond its commentary format. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it directly comments on a study focused on surgical approach outcomes for colorectal endometriosis.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Full text 2,235 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Data availability No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. References Zhang X, Zhang X (2025) Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopy for colorectal endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robotic Surg 19:239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02374-6 Gastrointestinal outcomes following segmental colorectal resection for treating deep infiltrating endometriosis: a retrospective Study. J Surg. 2024. https://doi.org/10.29011/25759760.11114 Hughes N, Hughes R, Gilmore K, Pawlak M (2025) BHSeP16 Robotic groin hernia—a single centre experience on the learning curve. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znae323.018 Pedro CA, Pickert FS et al (2025) Surgical approach in the treatment of deep endometriosis. Health Societ. https://doi.org/10.51249/hs.v5i01.2384 von Heesen M, Ghadimi M (2024) Anastomoseninsuffizienzen in der Kolorektalchirurgie. Chirurgie 95:878–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-024-02180-0 Funding No funding was received for this study. Author information Authors and Affiliations Contributions Wajid Memon: conceptualization, methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. Rachana Mehta: writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. Ranjana Sah: validation, supervision, project administration, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of interests The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval Not required. Human ethics and consent to participate Not applicable as no patient data were collected or analyzed in this study. Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Memon, W., Mehta, R. & Sah, R. Comment on “Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopy for colorectal endometriosis: a systematic review and meta‑analysis”. J Robotic Surg 19, 268 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02442-x Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02442-x

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosis

Citation neighborhood (sparse)

Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.

Cites (3)

References (5)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-12T06:13:51.797165+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-16T00:31:22.445884+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK