Weimin Xie1, Dongyan Cao1, Jiaxin Yang2, Keng Shen1, Lin Zhao1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. yangjiaxin4022@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare perioperative outcomes between robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of endometrial cancer by conducting a meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE up to January 8, 2016. Studies clearly documenting a comparison between RAS and CLS for patients with endometrial cancer were included. The perioperative outcomes of interest included intraoperative visceral injuries, postoperative complications, operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, total lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were pooled with either a fixed-effects or a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies were included in the analysis, involving 3056 patients. The pooled analysis showed that RAS was associated with lower EBL (WMD -77.65; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -105.58 to -49.72), lower conversion rate (OR 0.29; 95 % CI 0.18-0.46), and shorter hospital stay (WMD -0.48; 95 % CI -0.70 to -0.26) compared to CLS. The incidence of intraoperative visceral injuries, operation time, transfusion rate, and TLNH showed no significant differences between RAS and CLS. CONCLUSIONS: RAS is a feasible and effective surgical approach that may be superior to CLS for the treatment of endometrial cancer, with lower EBL and lower conversion rate. Further prospective randomized trials are required to validate our findings.
PURPOSE: To compare perioperative outcomes between robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of endometrial cancer by conducting a meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE up to January 8, 2016. Studies clearly documenting a comparison between RAS and CLS for patients with endometrial cancer were included. The perioperative outcomes of interest included intraoperative visceral injuries, postoperative complications, operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, total lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were pooled with either a fixed-effects or a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies were included in the analysis, involving 3056 patients. The pooled analysis showed that RAS was associated with lower EBL (WMD -77.65; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -105.58 to -49.72), lower conversion rate (OR 0.29; 95 % CI 0.18-0.46), and shorter hospital stay (WMD -0.48; 95 % CI -0.70 to -0.26) compared to CLS. The incidence of intraoperative visceral injuries, operation time, transfusion rate, and TLNH showed no significant differences between RAS and CLS. CONCLUSIONS:RAS is a feasible and effective surgical approach that may be superior to CLS for the treatment of endometrial cancer, with lower EBL and lower conversion rate. Further prospective randomized trials are required to validate our findings.
Authors: Karen Y Tang; Stuart K Gardiner; Claire Gould; Blake Osmundsen; Michael Collins; William E Winter Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Anna V Hoekstra; Arati Jairam-Thodla; Alfred Rademaker; Diljeet K Singh; Barbara M Buttin; John R Lurain; Julian C Schink; M Patrick Lowe Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.547
Authors: Akila Subramaniam; Kenneth H Kim; Shannon A Bryant; Bin Zhang; Christa Sikes; Kristopher J Kimball; Larry C Kilgore; Warner K Huh; John M Straughn; Ronald D Alvarez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-06-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Paola A Gehrig; Leigh A Cantrell; Aaron Shafer; Lisa N Abaid; Alberto Mendivil; John F Boggess Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-08-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Alberto A Mendivil; Mark A Rettenmaier; Lisa N Abaid; John V Brown; John P Micha; Katrina L Lopez; Bram H Goldstein Journal: JSLS Date: 2015 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Richard S Hoehn; Ibrahim Nassour; Mohamed A Adam; Sharon Winters; Alessandro Paniccia; Amer H Zureikat Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ibrahim Nassour; Sam C Wang; Matthew R Porembka; Adam C Yopp; Michael A Choti; Mathew M Augustine; Patricio M Polanco; John C Mansour; Rebecca M Minter Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ibrahim Nassour; Michael A Choti; Matthew R Porembka; Adam C Yopp; Sam C Wang; Patricio M Polanco Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kate McBride; Daniel Steffens; Christina Stanislaus; Michael Solomon; Teresa Anderson; Ruban Thanigasalam; Scott Leslie; Paul G Bannon Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 2.655