Surgical endoscopy · 2023
Robot-assisted laparoscopy does not have demonstrable advantages over conventional laparoscopy in endometriosis surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Csirzó Ádám, Kovács Dénes Péter, Szabó Anett, Fehérvári Péter, Jankó Árpád, Hegyi Péter, Nyirády Péter, Sipos Zoltán, Sára Levente, Ács Nándor, Szabó István, Valent Sándor
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a chronic condition affecting 6-10% of women of reproductive age, with endometriosis-related pain and infertility being the leading symptoms. Currently, the gold standard treatment approach to surgery is conventional laparoscopy (CL); however, the increasing availability of robot-assisted surgery is projected as a competitor of CL. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) and CL in endometriosis surgery.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of these two procedures.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in three medical databases. Studies investigating different perioperative outcomes of endometriosis-related surgeries were included. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,014 records, of which 13 were eligible for data extraction. No significant differences were detected between the CL and RAL groups in terms of intraoperative complications (OR = 1.07, CI 0.43-2.63), postoperative complications (OR = 1.3, CI 0.73-2.32), number of conversions to open surgery (OR = 1.34, CI 0.76-2.37), length of hospital stays (MD = 0.12, CI 0.33-0.57), blood loss (MD = 16.73, CI 4.18-37.63) or number of rehospitalizations (OR = 0.95, CI 0.13-6.75). In terms of operative times (MD = 28.09 min, CI 11.59-44.59) and operating room times (MD = 51.39 min, CI 15.07-87.72;), the RAL technique remained inferior.
CONCLUSION: RAL does not have statistically demonstrable advantages over CL in terms of perioperative outcomes for endometriosis-related surgery.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of these two procedures.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in three medical databases. Studies investigating different perioperative outcomes of endometriosis-related surgeries were included. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,014 records, of which 13 were eligible for data extraction. No significant differences were detected between the CL and RAL groups in terms of intraoperative complications (OR = 1.07, CI 0.43-2.63), postoperative complications (OR = 1.3, CI 0.73-2.32), number of conversions to open surgery (OR = 1.34, CI 0.76-2.37), length of hospital stays (MD = 0.12, CI 0.33-0.57), blood loss (MD = 16.73, CI 4.18-37.63) or number of rehospitalizations (OR = 0.95, CI 0.13-6.75). In terms of operative times (MD = 28.09 min, CI 11.59-44.59) and operating room times (MD = 51.39 min, CI 15.07-87.72;), the RAL technique remained inferior.
CONCLUSION: RAL does not have statistically demonstrable advantages over CL in terms of perioperative outcomes for endometriosis-related surgery.