Abstract

The authors present a systematic review of randomized and observational, retrospective and prospective studies to compare between robotic surgery as opposed to laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal surgery for the treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications. The comparison focuses on operative times, surgical outcomes, and surgical complications associated with the various surgical techniques. PubMed was the main search engine utilized in search of study data. The review included studies of various designs that included at least 25 women who had undergone robotic gynecologic surgery. Fifty-five studies (42 comparative and 13 non-comparative) met eligibility criteria. After careful analysis, we found that robotic surgery was consistently connected to shorter post-surgical hospitalization when compared to open surgery, a difference less significant when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Also, it seems that robotic surgery is highly feasible in gynecology. There are quite a few inconsistencies regarding operative times and estimated blood loss between the different approaches, though in the majority of studies estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic surgery group. The high variance in operative times resulted from the difference in surgeon’s experience. The decision whether robotic surgery should become mainstream in gynecological surgery or remain another surgical technique in the gynecological surgeon’s toolbox requires quite a few more randomized controlled clinical trials. In any case, in order to bring robotic surgery down to the front row of surgery, training surgeons is by far the most important goal for the next few years.

Highlights

  • The authors present a systematic review of randomized and observational, retrospective and prospective studies to compare between robotic surgery as opposed to laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal surgery for the treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications

  • Significantly shorter times were observed in the patients undergoing hysterectomy alone (125 min [108–151] versus 136 min [111–171], P=0.02) and the patients undergoing hysterectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection, and para-aortic lymph node dissection (186 min [154–232] versus 244 min [205–279], P

  • The investigators concluded that robotic surgery is technically feasible, safe, and reproducible for this indication and grade of disease, and has the potential to become the treatment of choice for patients affected by Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I–II endometrial cancer

Read more

Summary

Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal

Special Issue on Gynecology, Fertility, and Obstetrics Guest Editors: Lior Lowenstein, M.D., M.S., M.H.A., Shahar Kol, M.D., and Zeev Weiner, M.D. Roy Lauterbach, M.D.*, Emad Matanes, M.D., and Lior Lowenstein, M.D., M.S., M.H.A

ROBOTIC SURGERY FOR BENIGN INDICATIONS
STUDY SOURCES AND SELECTION
Hysterectomy for Benign Indications
ROBOTIC SURGERY FOR MALIGNANT INDICATIONS
Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery
Robotic Versus Open Surgery
Robotic Surgery for Treatment of Cervical Cancer
Findings
DISCUSSION

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.