Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2016
Robotic assisted vs laparoscopic and/or open myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical evidence.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Iavazzo Christos, Mamais Ioannis, Gkegkes Ioannis D
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Uterine myomas are relative frequent in premenopausal women. The development of advanced minimally invasive surgical techniques proposed robotic-assisted myomectomy as an equally safe and effective treatment option.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases were systematically searched and 15 studies met the inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Eight studies compared robotic technique to laparoscopic, while nine studies to open/abdominal technique. In total, 2,027 patients were included. In studies referring to the comparison between the robotic myomectomy and the open one, the robotic technique showed a significant inferiority in operative time [84.85 min per operation (95 % confidence intervals (CI) 60.41-109.29)], but superiority in estimated blood loss [92.78 ml/operation (95 % CI 47.26-138.29)], the need for transfusion [981 patients; odd ratio (OR) 0.20; 95 % CI 0.09-0.43], total complications (1101 patients; OR 0.31; 95 % CI 0.11-0.87) and in the length of hospital stay [1.84 days/patient (95 % CI 1.40-2.29)] over the open myomectomy.
CONCLUSION: Regarding the comparison between robotic assisted and laparoscopic technique, no significant difference was found between the two in comparison groups. Minimally invasive techniques have the advantage of less blood loss, less need for blood transfusion and less hospital stay. Additionally, long-term outcomes still need to be clarified including pain control, fertility and pregnancy rates postoperatively, as well as possible recurrence rates.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases were systematically searched and 15 studies met the inclusion criteria for our meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Eight studies compared robotic technique to laparoscopic, while nine studies to open/abdominal technique. In total, 2,027 patients were included. In studies referring to the comparison between the robotic myomectomy and the open one, the robotic technique showed a significant inferiority in operative time [84.85 min per operation (95 % confidence intervals (CI) 60.41-109.29)], but superiority in estimated blood loss [92.78 ml/operation (95 % CI 47.26-138.29)], the need for transfusion [981 patients; odd ratio (OR) 0.20; 95 % CI 0.09-0.43], total complications (1101 patients; OR 0.31; 95 % CI 0.11-0.87) and in the length of hospital stay [1.84 days/patient (95 % CI 1.40-2.29)] over the open myomectomy.
CONCLUSION: Regarding the comparison between robotic assisted and laparoscopic technique, no significant difference was found between the two in comparison groups. Minimally invasive techniques have the advantage of less blood loss, less need for blood transfusion and less hospital stay. Additionally, long-term outcomes still need to be clarified including pain control, fertility and pregnancy rates postoperatively, as well as possible recurrence rates.