Literature DB >> 26272688

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Benjamin B Albright1, Tilman Witte2, Alena N Tofte3, Jeremy Chou3, Jonathan D Black4, Vrunda B Desai4, Elisabeth A Erekson5.   

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease, as determined by randomized studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Controlled-Trials.com from study inception to October 9, 2014, using the intersection of the themes "robotic" and "hysterectomy." We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy in women for benign disease. Four trials met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses. We extracted data, and assessed the studies for methodological quality in duplicate. For meta-analysis, we used random effects to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences. For our primary outcome, we used a modified version of the Expanded Accordion Severity Grading System to classify perioperative complications. We identified 41 complications among 326 patients. Comparing robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy, revealed no statistically significant differences in the rate of class 1 and 2 complications (RR, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-1.89) or in the rate of class 3 and 4 complications (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.22-4.40). Analyses of secondary outcomes were limited owing to heterogeneity, but showed no significant benefit of the robotic technique over the laparoscopic technique in terms of length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -0.39 day; 95% CI, -0.92 to 0.14 day), total operating time (weighted mean difference, 9.0 minutes; 95% CI, -31.27 to 47.26 minutes), conversions to laparotomy, or blood loss. Outcomes of cost, pain, and quality of life were reported inconsistently and were not amenable to pooling. Current evidence demonstrates neither statistically significant nor clinically meaningful differences in surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease. The role of robotic surgery in benign gynecology remains unclear.
Copyright © 2016 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopic hysterectomy; Meta-analysis; Robotic surgery; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26272688      PMCID: PMC4698211          DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  27 in total

1.  It's the prices, stupid: why the United States is so different from other countries.

Authors:  Gerard F Anderson; Uwe E Reinhardt; Peter S Hussey; Varduhi Petrosyan
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy vs traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy: five metaanalyses.

Authors:  Michele Scandola; Lorenzo Grespan; Marco Vicentini; Paolo Fiorini
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.137

3.  ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 4.  Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.

Authors:  Arnold P Advincula; Karen Wang
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.137

Review 5.  Robotic gynecologic surgery.

Authors:  Anthony G Visco; Arnold P Advincula
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 7.  The accordion severity grading system of surgical complications.

Authors:  Steven M Strasberg; David C Linehan; William G Hawkins
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 8.  Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions.

Authors:  Forough Farrokhyar; Paul J Karanicolas; Achilleas Thoma; Marko Simunovic; Mohit Bhandari; P J Devereaux; Mehran Anvari; Anthony Adili; Gordon Guyatt
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 9.  Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

Authors:  Theodoor E Nieboer; Neil Johnson; Anne Lethaby; Emma Tavender; Elizabeth Curr; Ray Garry; Sabine van Voorst; Ben Willem J Mol; Kirsten B Kluivers
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-07-08

Review 10.  Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials.

Authors:  R Kunz; G Vist; A D Oxman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18
View more
  27 in total

1.  Single-port hysterectomy: robotic versus laparoscopic.

Authors:  Mete Gungor; Korhan Kahraman; Polat Dursun; Esra Ozbasli; Canan Genim
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-04-20

2.  Comparison of cost and operative outcomes of robotic hysterectomy compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy across different uterine weights.

Authors:  Gaby N Moawad; Elias D Abi Khalil; Paul Tyan; Michael K Shu; David Samuel; Richard Amdur; Stacey A Scheib; Cherie Q Marfori
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-01-31

3.  Diffusion of robotic-assisted laparoscopic technology across specialties: a national study from 2008 to 2013.

Authors:  Yen-Yi Juo; Aditya Mantha; Ahmad Abiri; Anne Lin; Erik Dutson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Accordion: A Useful and Workable Classification of Complications After Breast Reconstructive Surgery.

Authors:  Justyna Jończyk; Jerzy Jankau
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 0.558

5.  Does the experience of the first assistant affect organ injuries in laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign diseases?

Authors:  Yoko Tsuzuki; Takumi Hirata; Shinya Tsuzuki; Shinichiro Wada; Akiko Tamakoshi
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 2.493

6.  Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications.

Authors:  Carolyn W Swenson; Neil S Kamdar; John A Harris; Shitanshu Uppal; Darrell A Campbell; Daniel M Morgan
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Do Robotic Surgical Systems Improve Profit Margins? A Cross-Sectional Analysis of California Hospitals.

Authors:  Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Chan Shen; Jim C Hu
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 5.725

8.  Trends in Hysterectomy Incidence Rates During 2000-2015 in Denmark: Shifting from Abdominal to Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures.

Authors:  Kathrine Dyhr Lycke; Johnny Kahlert; Rikke Damgaard; Ole Mogensen; Anne Hammer
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 4.790

Review 9.  Receptor-Targeted Fluorescence-Guided Surgery With Low Molecular Weight Agents.

Authors:  Servando Hernandez Vargas; Christie Lin; Hop S Tran Cao; Naruhiko Ikoma; Solmaz AghaAmiri; Sukhen C Ghosh; Adam J Uselmann; Ali Azhdarinia
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  The Impact of New Surgical Techniques on Geographical Unwarranted Variation: The Case of Benign Hysterectomy.

Authors:  Daniel Adrian Lungu; Elisa Foresi; Paolo Belardi; Sabina Nuti; Andrea Giannini; Tommaso Simoncini
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.