Efficacy and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis

被引:0
作者
Dai, Zhen [1 ]
Qin, Fuqiang [1 ]
Yang, Yuxing [1 ]
Liang, Weiming [1 ]
Wang, Xiao [1 ]
机构
[1] Guangxi Univ Sci & Technol, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Oncol, Liuzhou, Guangxi, Peoples R China
来源
FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY | 2024年 / 14卷
关键词
cervical cancer; robotic; radical hysterectomy; laparoscopic; meta-analysis; LEARNING-CURVE; SURGERY; LYMPHADENECTOMY;
D O I
10.3389/fonc.2024.1303165
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Introduction: Robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) is a newly developed minimally invasive surgery that has been suggested as a substitute for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). This meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) for cervical cancer. Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted in four databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL) for studies comparing the utilization of RRH and LRH in the treatment of cervical cancer. The search included articles published from the inception of the databases up until July 18, 2023. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess several surgical outcomes, including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, pelvic lymph nodes, positive surgical margin, total complications, one-year recurrence rate, one-year mortality, and one-year disease-free survival rate. Results: Six studies were included for meta-analysis. In total, 234 patients were in the RRH group and 174 patients were in the LRH group. RRH had significantly longer operative time (MD=14.23,95% CI:5.27 similar to 23.20, P=0.002),shorter hospital stay (MD= -1.10,95% CI:-1.43 similar to 0.76, P <0.00001),more dissected pelvic lymph nodes(MD=0.89,95%CI:0.18 similar to 1.60, P =0.01) and less blood loss(WMD = -27.78,95%CI:-58.69 similar to -3.14, P=0.08, I-2 = 80%) compared with LRH. No significant difference was observed between two groups regarding positive surgical margin (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 similar to 2.76, P=0.61), over complications (OR = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.46-1.28, P=0.31), one-year recurrence rate (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.03-1.15, P=0.13), one-year mortality rate (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.03-1.15, P=0.07) and disease-free survival at one year (OR = 1.92, 95% CI 0.32-11.50, P=0.48). Conclusion: RRH is an increasingly popular surgical method known for its high level of security and efficiency. It has many benefits in comparison to LRH, such as decreased blood loss, a higher quantity of dissected pelvic lymph nodes, and a shorter duration of hospitalization. Further multicenter, randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up durations are necessary to conclusively determine the safety and efficacy of RRH, as no significant differences were observed in terms of positive surgical margin, postoperative complications, 1-year recurrence, 1-year mortality, and 1-year disease-free survival. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023446653
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Urinary retention between nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy and radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A meta-analysis
    Zhou, Jing
    Zhang, Rong
    Tang, Xiaohui
    Liu, Suwei
    Jiang, Xiajuan
    MEDICINE, 2023, 102 (09) : E32985
  • [22] Laparoscopic, robotic and open method of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review
    Geetha, Puliyath
    Nair, M. Krishnan
    JOURNAL OF MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY, 2012, 8 (03) : 67 - 73
  • [23] Comparison of conventional laparoscopy and robotic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: A meta-analysis
    Hao Xianhua
    Han Shuzhai
    Wang Yunfei
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, 2015, 11 (08) : 258 - 264
  • [24] Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in prolapsed uterus
    Cabrera, Silvia
    Franco-Camps, Silvia
    Garcia, Angel
    Verges, Ramona
    Diaz-Feijoo, Berta
    Assumpcio Perez-Benavente, M.
    Luis Poza, Jose
    Bradbury, Melissa
    Xercavins, Jordi
    Gil-Moreno, Antonio
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2010, 282 (01) : 63 - 67
  • [25] Comparison of Laparoscopic-Assisted Radical Vaginal Hysterectomy and Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in the Treatment of Cervical Cancer
    Chel Hun Choi
    Jeong-Won Lee
    Yoo-Young Lee
    Ha-Jeong Kim
    Taejong Song
    Min-Kyu Kim
    Tae-Joong Kim
    Byoung-Gie Kim
    Duk-Soo Bae
    Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2012, 19 : 3839 - 3848
  • [26] A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy
    Estape, Ricardo
    Lambrou, Nicholas
    Diaz, Robert
    Estape, Eric
    Dunkin, Natalie
    Rivera, Angel
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2009, 113 (03) : 357 - 361
  • [27] Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer
    Nezhat, Farr R.
    Datta, M. Shoma
    Liu, Connie
    Chuang, Linus
    Zakashansky, Konstantin
    JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2008, 12 (03) : 227 - 237
  • [28] Safety and Tolerance of Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer in the Elderly
    George, Erin M.
    Tergas, Ana I.
    Ananth, Cande V.
    Burke, William M.
    Lewin, Sharyn N.
    Prendergast, Eri
    Neugut, Alfred I.
    Hershman, Dawn L.
    Wright, Jason D.
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2014, 134 (01) : 36 - 41
  • [29] Robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: current trends and controversies
    Kim, Jeeyeon
    Chang, Ha Kyun
    Paek, Jiheum
    Park, Hyeon Ji
    Moon, Hye Yeon
    JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2024, 15 (16): : 5134 - 5139
  • [30] Clinical observation of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer
    Yin, Xiang-Hua
    Wang, Zhong-Qin
    Yang, Shi-Zhang
    Jia, Hong-Yan
    Shi, Min
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2014, 7 (05): : 1373 - 1377