Jing Zhou1, Bing Hong Xiong2, Li Ma3, Yong Cheng1, Wei Huang4, Lin Zhao5. 1. First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Yuanjiagang, Yuzhong District, Chongqing, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Peking University Shougang Hospital, Shijingshan District, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Endocrinology, Third Hospital of Mianyang, Sichuan Province, Mianyang, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of General Surgery, Ninth People's Hospital of Chongqing City, People's Republic of China. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mianyang 404 Hospital, Sichuan Province, and Second Affiliated Hospital, Medical College of North Sichuan, Mianyang, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) in patients with cervical cancer (CC) are equivalent to those of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). METHODS: The Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies documenting a comparison of RRH with LRH for CC were selected. Operative and recovery outcomes, common morbidity, and oncological parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: Compared with LRH, RRH was associated with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. There were no significant differences in operative time, complications, mortality, transfusion, conversions, number of retrieved lymph nodes, recurrence or disease-free survival between the two groups. CONCLUSION: RRH for CC is safe and feasible and may be an alternative treatment for CC. More multicentre randomized controlled trials investigating the long-term oncological outcomes are required to determine the advantages of RRH over LRH in CC.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) in patients with cervical cancer (CC) are equivalent to those of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). METHODS: The Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies documenting a comparison of RRH with LRH for CC were selected. Operative and recovery outcomes, common morbidity, and oncological parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: Compared with LRH, RRH was associated with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. There were no significant differences in operative time, complications, mortality, transfusion, conversions, number of retrieved lymph nodes, recurrence or disease-free survival between the two groups. CONCLUSION: RRH for CC is safe and feasible and may be an alternative treatment for CC. More multicentre randomized controlled trials investigating the long-term oncological outcomes are required to determine the advantages of RRH over LRH in CC.
Authors: Lan Ying Li; Lan Ying Wen; Sun Hee Park; Eun Ji Nam; Jung Yun Lee; Sunghoon Kim; Young Tae Kim; Sang Wun Kim Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: J Kampers; E Gerhardt; P Sibbertsen; T Flock; H Hertel; R Klapdor; M Jentschke; P Hillemanns Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 2.493