Robotic-assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Gynecological Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 1.2 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Journal of Mid-life Health Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-05 DOI:10.4103/jmh.jmh_235_23

Anupama Bahadur, Rabia Zaman, Rajlaxmi Mundhra, Kalaivani Mani

{"title":"Robotic-assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Gynecological Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Anupama Bahadur, Rabia Zaman, Rajlaxmi Mundhra, Kalaivani Mani","doi":"10.4103/jmh.jmh_235_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery is safe and feasible procedure for benign gynaecological conditions with less morbidity.Objective: To determine the best approach in benign gynecology and establish superiority of robotic over conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy in terms of safety and effectiveness.Methods: Search strategy: Electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (the Registry of Controlled Clinical Studies of the Cochrane Collaboration), Google scholar, Pubmed and Scopus were searched from 2010-2022. Selection criteria: All randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials which compared robotic versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy were included to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate compared to traditional approaches.Results: Only five RCTs (326 patients in total) comparing robotic and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy were included after a comprehensive literature search. Results of our analysis showed no clear benefit in any of the two techniques in operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay and overall complications.Conclusion: This systematic review suggests no statistical difference in surgical and patient outcomes between robotic and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy relating to OT, EBL, LOHS, overall complications, and survival.","PeriodicalId":37717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mid-life Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321512/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mid-life Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmh.jmh_235_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery is safe and feasible procedure for benign gynaecological conditions with less morbidity.

Objective: To determine the best approach in benign gynecology and establish superiority of robotic over conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy in terms of safety and effectiveness.

Methods: Search strategy: Electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (the Registry of Controlled Clinical Studies of the Cochrane Collaboration), Google scholar, Pubmed and Scopus were searched from 2010-2022. Selection criteria: All randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials which compared robotic versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy were included to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate compared to traditional approaches.

Results: Only five RCTs (326 patients in total) comparing robotic and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy were included after a comprehensive literature search. Results of our analysis showed no clear benefit in any of the two techniques in operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay and overall complications.

Conclusion: This systematic review suggests no statistical difference in surgical and patient outcomes between robotic and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy relating to OT, EBL, LOHS, overall complications, and survival.

查看原文本刊更多论文

针对良性妇科疾病的机器人辅助与传统腹腔镜子宫切除术：系统回顾与元分析》。

背景：微创妇科手术是一种安全可行的良性妇科疾病手术，发病率较低：微创妇科手术是治疗妇科良性疾病的安全可行的方法，且发病率较低：确定良性妇科手术的最佳方法，并确定机器人子宫切除术在安全性和有效性方面优于传统腹腔镜手术：搜索策略：电子数据库：检索时间：2010-2022 年，电子数据库：MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL（Cochrane 协作组织对照临床研究注册中心）、Google scholar、Pubmed 和 Scopus。选择标准：纳入所有比较机器人与传统腹腔镜子宫切除术的随机对照试验和准随机试验，进行系统综述和荟萃分析，研究与传统方法的比较：结果：经过全面的文献检索，仅纳入了五项比较机器人与传统腹腔镜子宫切除术的 RCT（共 326 名患者）。我们的分析结果显示，两种技术在手术时间、估计失血量、住院时间和总体并发症方面均无明显优势：本系统综述表明，机器人与传统腹腔镜子宫切除术在手术时间、EBL、LOHS、总体并发症和存活率方面的手术和患者预后没有统计学差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Mid-life Health Social Sciences-Health (social science)

CiteScore

1.70

自引率

9.10%

发文量

审稿时长

43 weeks

期刊介绍： Journal of mid-life health is the official journal of the Indian Menopause society published Quarterly in January, April, July and October. It is peer reviewed, scientific journal of mid-life health and its problems. It includes all aspects of mid-life health, preventive as well as curative. The journal publishes on subjects such as gynecology, neurology, geriatrics, psychiatry, endocrinology, urology, andrology, psychology, healthy ageing, cardiovascular health, bone health, quality of life etc. as relevant of men and women in their midlife. The Journal provides a visible platform to the researchers as well as clinicians to publish their experiences in this area thereby helping in the promotion of mid-life health leading to healthy ageing, growing need due to increasing life expectancy. The Editorial team has maintained high standards and published original research papers, case reports and review articles from the best of the best contributors both national & international, consistently so that now, it has become a great tool in the hands of menopause practitioners.