Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy vs. Robotic assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Following compelling evidence that open techniques may be related to better survival and disease free survival rates, many gynecologic oncologists in the US have turned away from performing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. While this may be warranted as a safety concern, there is little high-quality data on the head-to-head comparison of LRH and RRH and therefore little evidence to answer the question of where this decrease in patient survival is originating from. In our systematic review, we aimed to compare the complications and outcomes of LRH against those of RRH. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from database inception until February 1st, 2022. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A total of 676 studies were identified and screened through a manual three-step process. Ultimately 33 studies were included in our final analysis. We included all studies that compared LRH and RRH and included at least one of our selected outcomes. We included retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control, and randomized clinical trials. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data was independently extracted manually by multiple observers and the analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. PRISMA guidelines were followed. We analyzed homogenous data using a fixed-effects model, while a random-effects model was used for heterogeneous outcomes. We found that following RRH, women had a decreased hospital stay (MD = 0.80[0.38,1.21],(P < 0.002). We found no differences in estimated blood loss (MD = 35.24[-0.40,70.89],(P = 0.05), blood transfusion rate ((OR = 1.32[0.86,2.02],(P = 0.20), rate of post-operative complications (OR = 0.84[0.60,1.17],(P = 0.30), the operative time (MD = 6.01[-4.64,16.66],(P = 0.27), number of resected lymph node (MD = -1.22[-3.28,0.84],(P = 0.25) intraoperative complications (OR = 0.78[0.51,1.19],(P = 0.25), five-year overall survival (OR = 1.37[0.51,3.69],(P = 0.53), lifetime disease free survival (OR = 0.89[0.59,1.32],(P = 0.55), intraoperative and postoperative mortality (within 30 days) (OR = 1.30[0.66,2.54],(P = 0.44), and recurrence (OR = 1.14[0.79,1.64],(P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: RRH seems to result in the patient leaving the hospital sooner after surgery. We were unable to find any differences in our ten other outcomes related to complications or efficacy. These findings suggest that the decreased survival seen in minimally invasive RH in previous studies could be due to factors inherent to both LRH and RRH. PROSPERO PROSPECTIVE REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022273727.

Efficacy of laparoscopic and trans-abdominal cerclage (TAC) in patients with cervical insufficiency: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical insufficiency (CI) may result in preterm delivery. We sought out to perform this review and analysis to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic and open transabdominal cerclage (TAC) in patients suffering with CI. METHODS: Our search included PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Cochrane and Web of Science. We analyzed the data with Open Meta-Analyst Software as well as Review Manager Software. We included observational and randomized controlled trials that included patients with CI that underwent laparoscopic cerclage or TAC. RESULTS: We included a total of 43 studies. Laparoscopic and TAC had a positive effect by increasing gestational age (GA); for the laparoscopic group (mean deviation (MD)) = 14.86 weeks (W), 95% CI [10.67, 19.05], P < 0.001) and TAC (MD = 12.79 W, 95% CI [10.97, 14.61], P < 0.001). Furthermore, improvements in all outcomes assessed (total fetal survival rate, neonatal weight, and prevention of delivery at a gestational age of<24 weeks) were all significant with the exception of the prevention of all preterm deliveries<37 weeks; for both laparoscopic at (RR = 0.116, 95% CI [-0.006, 0.238], P = 0.063) and TAC at (MD = 1, 95% CI [0.45, 2.24], P = 1), and for prevention of deliveries<34 weeks for the laparoscopic group (RR = 0.446, 95% CI [-0.323, 1.215], P = 0.256) only. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited data prevented pregnancy and prepregnancy subgroups as well as a head-to-head comparison, we still found that in patients suffering from CI, both TAC and laparoscopic approaches to cerclage revealed a positive effect in preserving the pregnancy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures with and without robotic assistance.

OBJECTIVE: Following the publication of several high quality randomized controlled trials regarding the comparison of similar laparoscopic gynecologic procedures being performed with or without robotic assistance, we aimed to perform a systematic review to identify any differences in patient safety and expected incidence of complications in these procedures. DATA SOURCES: Articles on ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were retrieved and screened for eligibility up to April 1st 2021. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: In addition to meeting our screening algorithm, we included studies that met all the following: randomized control trials (RCT), enrolling patients for indicated laparoscopic gynecologic procedures, and comparing Robotic Surgery (RS) with Laparoscopic Surgery (LS) in terms of safety or complications. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data was pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Ultimately, six studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data revealed that RS and LS have similar risk for intraoperative complications (RR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.23, 3.36], P = 0.84), postoperative complications (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [0.57, 2.01], P = 0.83), significant intraoperative hemorrhage (RR = 1.40; 95% CI [0.59, 3.34], P = 0.44), postoperative hemorrhage (RR = 0.43; 95% CI [0.15, 1.22], P = 0.11), vaginal cuff dehiscence (RR = 1.13; 95% CI [0.24, 5.41], P = 0.88), postoperative wound infection, urinary tract infection, and urinary bladder or ureteral injury. RS had "surgeon declared" lower estimated blood loss (MD = 85.27; 95% CI [46.45, 124.09], P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = 1.20; 95% CI [0.38, 2.01], P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: There was a statistically significant decrease in hospital stay and "surgeon declared" blood loss seen in the RS group. There was no statistically significant increase in risk of developing other postoperative complications between the LS and R groups.