OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) versus conventional laparoscopy (CL) in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Utilizing electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Elsevier), a systematic literature review was performed between 2008 and 2015 to compare the RAL surgery with CL surgery (CLS) in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. According to meta-analysis criteria, two comparative clinical trials were selected. Outcome measures including length of operation, blood loss, operative complications, and the length of hospitalization, were estimated by the RevMan 5.1 software. RESULTS: In the meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in blood loss, complication, and hospital stay between RAL and CL surgeries in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. However, RAL surgery required a higher mean operating time than CL surgery (WMD: 73.85, 95% CI: 56.77-90.94; p < 0 .00001). Comparative studies demonstrated that RAL displayed no outstanding advantages. CONCLUSIONS: As a new minimally invasive method, RAL technology is safe and efficient alternative to CL in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. The latent benefits of RAL technology for the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis remain uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) versus conventional laparoscopy (CL) in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Utilizing electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Elsevier), a systematic literature review was performed between 2008 and 2015 to compare the RAL surgery with CL surgery (CLS) in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. According to meta-analysis criteria, two comparative clinical trials were selected. Outcome measures including length of operation, blood loss, operative complications, and the length of hospitalization, were estimated by the RevMan 5.1 software. RESULTS: In the meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in blood loss, complication, and hospital stay between RAL and CL surgeries in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. However, RAL surgery required a higher mean operating time than CL surgery (WMD: 73.85, 95% CI: 56.77-90.94; p < 0 .00001). Comparative studies demonstrated that RAL displayed no outstanding advantages. CONCLUSIONS: As a new minimally invasive method, RAL technology is safe and efficient alternative to CL in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. The latent benefits of RAL technology for the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis remain uncertain.
Authors: S Bendifallah; E Salakos; I Naoura; P Aristizabal; E Furet; S Zilberman; M Ballester; E Darai Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.584