TY - JOUR
T1 - Systematic Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology
T2 - Robotic Techniques Compared With Laparoscopy and Laparotomy
AU - Gala, Rajiv B.
AU - Margulies, Rebecca
AU - Steinberg, Adam
AU - Murphy, Miles
AU - Lukban, James
AU - Jeppson, Peter
AU - Aschkenazi, Sarit
AU - Olivera, Cedric
AU - South, Mary
AU - Lowenstein, Lior
AU - Schaffer, Joseph
AU - Balk, Ethan M.
AU - Sung, Vivian
PY - 2014/5
Y1 - 2014/5
N2 - The Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group performed a systematic review of both randomized and observational studies to compare robotic vs nonrobotic surgical approaches (laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal) for treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications to compare surgical and patient-centered outcomes, costs, and adverse events associated with the various surgical approaches. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to May 15, 2012, for English-language studies with terms related to robotic surgery and gynecology. Studies of any design that included at least 30 women who had undergone robotic-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic surgery were included for review. The literature yielded 1213 citations, of which 97 full-text articles were reviewed. Forty-four studies (30 comparative and 14 noncomparative) met eligibility criteria. Study data were extracted into structured electronic forms and reconciled by a second, independent reviewer. Our analysis revealed that, compared with open surgery, robotic surgery consistently confers shorter hospital stay. The proficiency plateau seems to be lower for robotic surgery than for conventional laparoscopy. Of the various gynecologic applications, there seems to be evidence that renders robotic techniques advantageous over traditional open surgery for management of endometrial cancer. However, insofar as superiority, conflicting data are obtained when comparing robotics vs laparoscopic techniques. Therefore, the specific method of minimally invasive surgery, whether conventional laparoscopy or robotic surgery, should be tailored to patient selection, surgeon ability, and equipment availability.
AB - The Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group performed a systematic review of both randomized and observational studies to compare robotic vs nonrobotic surgical approaches (laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal) for treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications to compare surgical and patient-centered outcomes, costs, and adverse events associated with the various surgical approaches. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to May 15, 2012, for English-language studies with terms related to robotic surgery and gynecology. Studies of any design that included at least 30 women who had undergone robotic-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic surgery were included for review. The literature yielded 1213 citations, of which 97 full-text articles were reviewed. Forty-four studies (30 comparative and 14 noncomparative) met eligibility criteria. Study data were extracted into structured electronic forms and reconciled by a second, independent reviewer. Our analysis revealed that, compared with open surgery, robotic surgery consistently confers shorter hospital stay. The proficiency plateau seems to be lower for robotic surgery than for conventional laparoscopy. Of the various gynecologic applications, there seems to be evidence that renders robotic techniques advantageous over traditional open surgery for management of endometrial cancer. However, insofar as superiority, conflicting data are obtained when comparing robotics vs laparoscopic techniques. Therefore, the specific method of minimally invasive surgery, whether conventional laparoscopy or robotic surgery, should be tailored to patient selection, surgeon ability, and equipment availability.
KW - Gynecologic surgery
KW - Learning curve
KW - Robotic surgery
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84899967045&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84899967045&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010
DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010
M3 - Review article
C2 - 24295923
AN - SCOPUS:84899967045
SN - 1553-4650
VL - 21
SP - 353
EP - 361
JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
IS - 3
ER -