Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease, as determined by randomized studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Controlled-Trials.com from study inception to October 9, 2014, using the intersection of the themes "robotic" and "hysterectomy." We included only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy in women for benign disease. Four trials met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analyses. We extracted data, and assessed the studies for methodological quality in duplicate. For meta-analysis, we used random effects to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences. For our primary outcome, we used a modified version of the Expanded Accordion Severity Grading System to classify perioperative complications. We identified 41 complications among 326 patients. Comparing robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy, revealed no statistically significant differences in the rate of class 1 and 2 complications (RR, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-1.89) or in the rate of class 3 and 4 complications (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.22-4.40). Analyses of secondary outcomes were limited owing to heterogeneity, but showed no significant benefit of the robotic technique over the laparoscopic technique in terms of length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -0.39 day; 95% CI, -0.92 to 0.14 day), total operating time (weighted mean difference, 9.0 minutes; 95% CI, -31.27 to 47.26 minutes), conversions to laparotomy, or blood loss. Outcomes of cost, pain, and quality of life were reported inconsistently and were not amenable to pooling. Current evidence demonstrates neither statistically significant nor clinically meaningful differences in surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease. The role of robotic surgery in benign gynecology remains unclear.

[1]  Jan Persson,et al.  A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy. , 2015, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[2]  Huan Song,et al.  Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[3]  W. Hawkins,et al.  The Accordion Severity Grading System of Surgical Complications , 2009, Annals of surgery.

[4]  S. von Felten,et al.  Robotic Compared With Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2012, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  R. Torrejón,et al.  Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy With and Without Robotic Assistance , 2014, Surgical innovation.

[6]  H. Sintonen,et al.  A systematic review and cost analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy in malignant and benign conditions. , 2014, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[7]  U. Reinhardt,et al.  It's the prices, stupid: why the United States is so different from other countries. , 2003, Health affairs.

[8]  P. Fiorini,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy vs traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy: five metaanalyses. , 2011, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[9]  B. Mol,et al.  Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[10]  Dawn L Hershman,et al.  Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. , 2013, JAMA.

[11]  Aagl Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide.  AAGL position statement: route of hysterectomy to treat benign uterine disease. , 2011, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[12]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[13]  Jon I. Einarsson,et al.  Updated Hysterectomy Surveillance and Factors Associated With Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy , 2014, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[14]  A D Oxman,et al.  Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials. , 2011, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[15]  Mohit Bhandari,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trials of Surgical Interventions , 2010, Annals of surgery.

[16]  Arnold P Advincula,et al.  Robotic gynecologic surgery. , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  S. Maeso,et al.  Meta‐analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery , 2010, The British journal of surgery.

[18]  A. Advincula,et al.  Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. , 2009, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[19]  J. Jelovsek,et al.  A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. , 2013, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  C. Teljeur,et al.  Robot-assisted hysterectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2013, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[21]  V. Sung,et al.  Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. , 2014, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[22]  G. Barbash,et al.  New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  E. Steinberg,et al.  Costs and charges associated with three alternative techniques of hysterectomy , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  A. Neugut,et al.  The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecologic surgery by hospitals. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[25]  M. Martino,et al.  A comparison of quality outcome measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: robotic vs. non-robotic approaches. , 2014, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.