Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy vs Traditional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: Five Metaanalyses

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 705-715

  Scandola, Michele ^a   Grespan, Lorenzo ^a   Vicentini, Marco ^a   Fiorini, Paolo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERONA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Meta analysis; Robot assisted laparoscopy

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BLEEDING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LAPAROTOMY; LENGTH OF STAY; META ANALYSIS; OPERATION DURATION; PATIENT SAFETY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; REVIEW; ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC HYSTERECTOMY; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

FEMALE; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPY; ROBOTICS; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 80054899386     PISSN: 15534650     EISSN: 15534669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.08.008     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Lanfranco A.R., Castellanos A.E., Desai J.P., Meyers W.C. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 2004, 239:14-21.
2. Moher D., Cook D.J., Eastwood S., et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999, 354:1896-1900.
3. Sert B., Abeler V. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical carcinoma patients, comparing results with total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy cases: the future is now?. Int J Med Robotics Compur Assist Surg 2007, 3:224-228.
4. Bell M.C., Torgerson J., Seshadri-Kreaden U., Suttle A., Hunt S. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 2008, 111:407-411.
5. Boggess J.F., Gehrig P.A., Cantrell L., et al. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008, 199:360.e1-360.e9.
6. Magrina J.F., Kho R.M., Weaver A.L., Montero R.P., Magtibay P.M. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2008, 109:86-91.
7. Payne T.N., Dauterive F.R. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008, 15:286-291.
8. Estape R., Lambrou N., Diaz R., et al. A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2009, 113:357-361.
9. Nezhat C., Lavie O., Lemyre M., et al. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 2009, 13:125-128.
10. Seamon L.G., Fowler J.M., Richardson D.L., et al. A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009, 114:162-167.
11. Shashoua A.R., Gill D., Locher S.R. Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Soc Laparoendoscop Surg 2009, 13:364-369.
12. Cardenas-Goicoechea J., Adams S., Bhat S.B., Randall T.C. Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center. Gynecol Oncol 2010, 117:224-228.
13. Giep B.N., Giep H.N., Hubert H.B. Comparison of minimally invasive surgical approaches for hysterectomy at a community hospital: robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. J Robotic Surg 2010, 4:167-175.
14. Gorvhev G., Tomov S., Tanchev L., Velkova A. Comparative analysis of the robot-assisted radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy, and abdominal radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Surg 2010, 7(Suppl 1):S95.
15. Holtz D.O., Miroshnichenko G., Finnegan M.O., Chernick M., Dunton C.J. Endometrial cancer surgery costs: robot vs laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010, 17:500-503.
16. Jung Y.W., Lee D.W., Kim S.W., et al. Robot-assisted staging using three robotic arms for endometrial cancer: comparison to laparoscopy and laparotomy at a single institution. J Surg Oncol 2010, 101:116-121.
17. Matthews C.A., Reid N., Ramakrishnan V., Hull K., Cohen S. Evaluation of the introduction of robotic technology on route of hysterectomy and complications in the first year of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010, 203:499.e1-499.e5.
18. Sarlos D., Kots L., Stevanovic N., Schaer G. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010, 150:92-96.
19. Sarlos D., Kots L., Schaer G. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial. Gynecol Surg 2010, 7(suppl 1):S104-S105.
20. Tomov S., Gorvhev G., Tanchev L. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic hysterectomy: discussion of the technic and perioperative outcomes. Gynecol Surg 2010, 7(Suppl 1):S70-S71.
21. Lim P.C., Kang E., Park D.H. A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients [published online ahead of print December 30, 2010]. Gynecol Oncol 2011, 120:413-418.
22. Sert M.B., Abeler V. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: comparison with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy; one surgeon's experience at the Norwegian Radium Hospital [published online ahead of print February 25, 2011]. Gynecol Oncol 2011, 121:600-604.
23. Tinelli R., Malzoni M., Cosentino F., et al. Robotics versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a multicenter study [published online ahead of print March 22, 2011]. Ann Surg Oncol 2011, Available at:, Accessed March 30, 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21394663.
24. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 1988, Routledge, London, England, 567. 2nd ed.
25. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2010. Available at: http://www.r-project.org.
26. Schwarzer G. Meta: meta-analysis with R. 2010. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/package=meta.
27. Borenstein M., Hedges L.V. Introduction to Meta-analysis 2009, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, 421.
28. Magrina J.F., Zanagnolo V., Noble B.N., Kho R.M., Magtibay P. Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2011, 121:100-105.
29. Seamon L.G., Cohn D.E., Henretta M.S., et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy?. Gynecol Oncol 2009, 113:36-41.
30. Lim P.C., Kang E., Park D.H. Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010, 17:739-748.
31. Göçmen A., Sanlikan F., Uçar M.G. Turkey's experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: a series of 25 consecutive cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010, 282:163-171.
32. Ficarra V., Cavalleri S., Novara G., Aragona M., Artibani W. Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2007, 51:45-56.
33. Patel H.R.H., Linares A., Joseph J.V. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery: cost and training. Surg Oncol 2009, 18:242-246.