Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Weimin Xie, Zhangyi Wang, Xiaohang Liu, Songhong Tan
{"title":"Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Weimin Xie, Zhangyi Wang, Xiaohang Liu, Songhong Tan","doi":"10.1186/s12885-025-13968-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) with robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in treating endometrial cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive literature search across several databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full Text Database (VIP). The search covered literature from inception until October 17, 2024. The primary outcomes included intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, postoperative pain scores, and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes. The secondary outcomes included operative time (min), estimated blood loss (ml), hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, sentinel lymph node identification, recurrence, and mortality during follow-up. Data analysis was performed using random-effects or fixed-effects models, calculating combined risk ratios (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies describing a total of 448 patients were retained and included for this meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between RSSH and RMPH regarding intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and postoperative pain scores. There were also no differences in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, and sentinel lymph node identification.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that RSSH is effective and safe for the treatment of endometrial cancer, as it is generally equivalent to RMPH regarding perioperative outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":"25 1","pages":"554"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13968-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This meta-analysis aims to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) with robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in treating endometrial cancer.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across several databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang, and the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full Text Database (VIP). The search covered literature from inception until October 17, 2024. The primary outcomes included intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, postoperative pain scores, and satisfaction with cosmetic outcomes. The secondary outcomes included operative time (min), estimated blood loss (ml), hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, sentinel lymph node identification, recurrence, and mortality during follow-up. Data analysis was performed using random-effects or fixed-effects models, calculating combined risk ratios (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

Results: Five studies describing a total of 448 patients were retained and included for this meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between RSSH and RMPH regarding intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and postoperative pain scores. There were also no differences in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion, conversion, postoperative hospital stay, lymph nodes harvested, and sentinel lymph node identification.

Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that RSSH is effective and safe for the treatment of endometrial cancer, as it is generally equivalent to RMPH regarding perioperative outcomes.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信