Shaping the future of surgery: A scoping review of current robotic practices in KSA

Résumé fourni par la source

Purpose: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has transformed surgical practice nationwide. Saudi Arabia (KSA) has integrated RAS into its healthcare system. However, gaps exist in the understanding of its adoption, challenges, and perceptions. This scoping review aims to map the existing literature on RAS in KSA, highlighting its implementation across specialties and identifying barriers to its expansion. Methods: following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and Arksey and O'Malley's framework, a systematic search was conducted across six databases. Studies focusing on RAS in KSA were included. Review articles and gray literature were excluded. Screening and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Results: The search identified 3859 studies, 85 were included. Most were case reports (n = 25) and retrospective cohort studies (n = 16), reflecting the recent adoption of RAS in KSA. Most studies originated from the Central region (n = 61), highlighting regional disparities in implementation. Urology (n = 26) was the most represented specialty, followed by general surgery (n = 14), pediatrics (n = 12), and obstetrics/gynecology (n = 10). Robotic partial nephrectomy, robotic donor hepatectomy, and robotic pyeloplasty were the most reported procedures. Ten cross-sectional studies assessed perceptions and knowledge regarding RAS among the general population and healthcare professionals, revealing limited public awareness and misconceptions about complications and robotic errors, and lack of formal training in most healthcare professionals in RAS due to limited system availability and administrative disinterest. Despite these challenges, medical professionals and students expressed a strong interest in RAS training. Conclusion: While RAS is expanding in KSA, significant regional disparities and training gaps remain. expanding education and system availability is crucial for advancement.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.