TY - JOUR
T1 - Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Shazly, Sherif A.M.
AU - Murad, Mohammad H.
AU - Dowdy, Sean C.
AU - Gostout, Bobbie S.
AU - Famuyide, Abimbola O.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/8/1
Y1 - 2015/8/1
N2 - Objective To compare intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) to laparoscopic and open approaches in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. Methods A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE (using Ovid interface) and SCOPUS databases was conducted from database inception through February 15, 2014. We included studies comparing surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy (robotic vs. laparoscopic or abdominal, or both) in women with stages IA1-IIA cervical cancer. Intraoperative outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, number of pelvic lymph nodes harvested and intraoperative complications. Postoperative outcomes were hospital stay and surgical morbidity. The random effects model was used to pool weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (OR). Results Twenty six nonrandomized studies were included (10 RRH vs abdominal radical hysterectomy [ARH], 9 RRH vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy [LRH] and 7 compared all 3 approaches) enrolling 4013 women (1013 RRH, 710 LRH and 2290 ARH). RRH was associated with less EBL (WMD = 384.3, 95% CI = 233.7, 534.8) and shorter hospital stay (WMD = 3.55, 95% CI = 2.10, 5.00) than ARH. RRH was also associated with lower odds of febrile morbidity (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.20-0.89), blood transfusion (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.06, 0.25) and wound-related complications (OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.13, 0.73) vs. ARH. RRH was comparable to LRH in all intra- and postoperative outcomes. Conclusion Current evidence suggests that RRH may be superior to ARH with lower EBL, shorter hospital stay, less febrile morbidity and wound-related complications. RRH and LRH appear equivalent in intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes and thus the choice of approach can be tailored to the choice of patient and surgeon.
AB - Objective To compare intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) to laparoscopic and open approaches in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. Methods A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE (using Ovid interface) and SCOPUS databases was conducted from database inception through February 15, 2014. We included studies comparing surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy (robotic vs. laparoscopic or abdominal, or both) in women with stages IA1-IIA cervical cancer. Intraoperative outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, number of pelvic lymph nodes harvested and intraoperative complications. Postoperative outcomes were hospital stay and surgical morbidity. The random effects model was used to pool weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (OR). Results Twenty six nonrandomized studies were included (10 RRH vs abdominal radical hysterectomy [ARH], 9 RRH vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy [LRH] and 7 compared all 3 approaches) enrolling 4013 women (1013 RRH, 710 LRH and 2290 ARH). RRH was associated with less EBL (WMD = 384.3, 95% CI = 233.7, 534.8) and shorter hospital stay (WMD = 3.55, 95% CI = 2.10, 5.00) than ARH. RRH was also associated with lower odds of febrile morbidity (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.20-0.89), blood transfusion (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.06, 0.25) and wound-related complications (OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.13, 0.73) vs. ARH. RRH was comparable to LRH in all intra- and postoperative outcomes. Conclusion Current evidence suggests that RRH may be superior to ARH with lower EBL, shorter hospital stay, less febrile morbidity and wound-related complications. RRH and LRH appear equivalent in intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes and thus the choice of approach can be tailored to the choice of patient and surgeon.
KW - Early stage cervical cancer
KW - Laparoscopic hysterectomy
KW - Metaanalysis
KW - Radical hysterectomy
KW - Robotic
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84938209574&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84938209574&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.009
DO - 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.009
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26056752
AN - SCOPUS:84938209574
VL - 138
SP - 457
EP - 471
JO - Gynecologic Oncology
JF - Gynecologic Oncology
SN - 0090-8258
IS - 2
ER -