Robotic surgery vs laparoscopic surgery in patients with diagnosis of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Giovanni Scambia, Francesco Fanfani, Liliana Mereu, Angelo Finelli, Maria Roberta Spina, Giulia Marini, Luigi Carlo Turco, Michela Milani, Vito Cela

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Endometriosis is one of the most common medical conditions affecting the women. The study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (LPS) in the treatment of endometriosis. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and CINAHL databases were searched from January 1995 to March 2019. According to meta-analysis criteria, five comparative studies were selected. A total of 1527 patients were identified. In the meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in blood loss, complication, and hospital stay between RAS and LPS surgeries in the treatment of patients with endometriosis. However, RAS surgery required a higher weighted mean operating time than LPS surgery, 0.54 (95% confidence interval; 0.37 to 0.70; p ' 0.00001) min. This meta-analysis confirmed that the robotic surgery is safe and feasible in patients affected by endometriosis. We could suggest that RAS is a valid option and might be considered an alternative to LPS especially in advanced cases.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)687-694
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Robotic Surgery
Volume14
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Keywords

  • Blood Loss, Surgical
  • Endometriosis
  • Feasibility Studies
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Laparoscopic surgery
  • Laparoscopy
  • Length of Stay
  • Operative Time
  • Postoperative Complications
  • Robotic Surgical Procedures
  • Robotic surgery
  • Safety
  • Treatment Outcome

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Robotic surgery vs laparoscopic surgery in patients with diagnosis of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this