Search

The potential benefits and limitations of benign hysterectomy surgical approaches are still debated. We aimed at evaluating any differences with a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were last searched on 6/2/2021 to identify English randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort and retrospective independent database studies published between Jan 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2020 reporting perioperative outcomes following robotic hysterectomy versus laparoscopic, open, or vaginal approach (PROSPERO #CRD42022352718). Twenty-four articles were included that reported on 110,306 robotic, 262,715 laparoscopic, 189,237 vaginal, and 554,407 open patients. The robotic approach was associated with a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.00001), less blood loss (p = 0.009), and fewer complications (OR: 0.42 [0.27, 0.66], p = 0.0001) when compared to the open approach. The main benefit compared to the laparoscopic and vaginal approaches was a shorter hospital (R/L WMD: - 0.144 [- 0.21, - 0.08], p < 0.0001; R/V WMD: - 0.39 [- 0.70, - 0.08], p = 0.01). Other benefits seen were sensitive to the inclusion of database studies. Study type differences in outcomes, a lack of RCTs for robotic vs. open comparisons, learning curve issues, and limited robotic vs. vaginal publications are limitations. While the robotic approach was mainly comparable to the laparoscopic approach, this meta-analysis confirms the classic benefits of minimally invasive surgery when comparing robotic hysterectomy to open surgery. We also reported the advantages of robotic surgery over vaginal surgery in a patient population with a higher incidence of large uterus and prior surgery., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: To assess long-term outcomes with robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery for colorectal, urologic, endometrial, cervical, and thoracic cancers., Background: Minimally invasive surgery provides perioperative benefits and similar oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. Recent robotic surgery data have questioned long-term benefits., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cancer outcomes based on surgical approach was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase. Hazard ratios for recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were extracted/estimated using a hierarchical decision tree and pooled in RevMan 5.4 using inverse-variance fixed-effect (heterogeneity nonsignificant) or random effect models., Results: Of 31,204 references, 199 were included (7 randomized, 23 database, 15 prospective, 154 retrospective studies)-157,876 robotic, 68,007 laparoscopic/thoracoscopic, and 234,649 open cases. Cervical cancer: OS and DFS were similar between robotic and laparoscopic [1.01 (0.56, 1.80), P =0.98] or open [1.18 (0.99, 1.41), P =0.06] surgery; 2 papers reported less recurrence with open surgery [2.30 (1.32, 4.01), P =0.003]. Endometrial cancer: the only significant result favored robotic over open surgery [OS; 0.77 (0.71, 0.83), P <0.001]. Lobectomy: DFS favored robotic over thoracoscopic surgery [0.74 (0.59, 0.93), P =0.009]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.93 (0.87, 1.00), P =0.04]. Prostatectomy: recurrence was less with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery [0.77 (0.68, 0.87), P <0.0001]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.78 (0.72, 0.85), P <0.0001]. Low-anterior resection: OS significantly favored robotic over laparoscopic [0.76 (0.63, 0.91), P =0.004] and open surgery [0.83 (0.74, 0.93), P =0.001]., Conclusions: Long-term outcomes were similar for robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery, with no safety signal or indication requiring further research (PROSPERO Reg#CRD42021240519)., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)