Skip to main content
Log in

Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review – Clinical Oncology
  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare perioperative outcomes between robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of endometrial cancer by conducting a meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE up to January 8, 2016. Studies clearly documenting a comparison between RAS and CLS for patients with endometrial cancer were included. The perioperative outcomes of interest included intraoperative visceral injuries, postoperative complications, operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, total lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were pooled with either a fixed-effects or a random-effects model.

Results

A total of 19 studies were included in the analysis, involving 3056 patients. The pooled analysis showed that RAS was associated with lower EBL (WMD −77.65; 95 % confidence interval [CI] −105.58 to −49.72), lower conversion rate (OR 0.29; 95 % CI 0.18–0.46), and shorter hospital stay (WMD −0.48; 95 % CI −0.70 to −0.26) compared to CLS. The incidence of intraoperative visceral injuries, operation time, transfusion rate, and TLNH showed no significant differences between RAS and CLS.

Conclusions

RAS is a feasible and effective surgical approach that may be superior to CLS for the treatment of endometrial cancer, with lower EBL and lower conversion rate. Further prospective randomized trials are required to validate our findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):407–411. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN et al (2008) A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(4):360.e1-9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.012

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cardenas-Goicoechea J, Adams S, Bhat SB, Randall TC (2010) Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center. Gynecol Oncol 117(2):224–228. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cardenas-Goicoechea J, Soto E, Chuang L, Gretz H, Randall TC (2013) Integration of robotics into two established programs of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer appears to decrease surgical complications. J Gynecol Oncol 24(1):21–28. doi:10.3802/jgo.2013.24.1.21

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cardenas-Goicoechea J, Shepherd A, Momeni M, Mandeli J, Chuang L, Gretz H et al (2014) Survival analysis of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 210(2):160.e1–160.e11. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers JM, Surwit EA (1992) Combined laparoscopic and vaginal surgery for the management of two cases of stage I endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 45(1):46–51

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou HY, Chiu LH, Chen CH, Yen YK, Chang CW, Liu WM (2015) Comparing robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer management: a cohort study. Int J Surg 13:17–22. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.11.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coronado PJ, Herraiz MA, Magrina JF, Fasero M, Vidart JA (2012) Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 165(2):289–294. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Corrado G, Cutillo G, Pomati G, Mancini E, Sperduti I, Patrizi L et al (2015) Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in the management of endometrial cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 41(8):1074–1081. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2015.04.020

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Desille-Gbaguidi H, Hebert T, Paternotte-Villemagne J, Gaborit C, Rush E, Body G (2013) Overall care cost comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for endometrial and cervical cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 171(2):348–352. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.09.025

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar PF, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Frasure HE, Fader AN, Schmeler KM et al (2012) Comparison of single-port laparoscopy, standard laparoscopy, and robotic surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19(5):1583–1588. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-2136-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A, Abaid LN, Mendivil A, Boggess JF (2008) What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol 111(1):41–45. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.06.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al (2011) The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra AV, Jairam-Thodla A, Rademaker A, Singh DK, Buttin BM, Lurain JR et al (2009) The impact of robotics on practice management of endometrial cancer: transitioning from traditional surgery. Int J Med Robot 5(4):392–397. doi:10.1002/rcs.268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey MM, Apte SM (2009) The use of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer. Cancer Control 16(1):30–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr L, Garry R (2005) Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 330(7506):1478

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jung YW, Lee DW, Kim SW, Nam EJ, Kim JH, Kim JW et al (2010) Robot-assisted staging using three robotic arms for endometrial cancer: comparison to laparoscopy and laparotomy at a single institution. J Surg Oncol 101(2):116–121. doi:10.1002/jso.21436

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lim PC, Kang E, do Park H (2010) Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(6):739–748. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.07.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lim PC, Kang E, do Park H (2011) A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol 120(3):413–418. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lin PS, Wakabayashi MT, Han ES (2009) Role of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 10(1–2):33–43. doi:10.1007/s11864-009-0086-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM (2008) Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 109(1):86–91. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Giles D, Noble BN, Kho RM, Magtibay PM (2011) Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes and recurrence with laparoscopy, vaginal/laparoscopy and laparotomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 32(5):476–480

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manchana T, Puangsricharoen P, Sirisabya N, Worasethsin P, Vasuratna A, Termrungruanglert W et al (2015) Comparison of Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes with Laparotomy, and Laparoscopic or Robotic Surgery for Women with Endometrial Cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 16(13):5483–5488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martino MA, Shubella J, Thomas MB, Morcrette RM, Schindler J, Williams S et al (2011) A cost analysis of postoperative management in endometrial cancer patients treated by robotics versus laparoscopic approach. Gynecol Oncol 123(3):528–531. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.08.021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mendivil AA, Rettenmaier MA, Abaid LN, Brown JV 3rd, Micha JP, Lopez KL et al (2015) A comparison of open surgery, robotic-assisted surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of morbidly obese endometrial cancer patients. JSLS 19(1):e2014.00001. doi:10.4293/JSLS.2014.00001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Naumann RW, Coleman RL (2007) The use of adjuvant radiation therapy in early endometrial cancer by members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists in 2005. Gynecol Oncol 105(1):7–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oehler MK (2015) Robotics versus conventional laparoscopy for endometrial cancer: Where are we now? Maturitas 81(2):241–242. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.03.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinovich A (2015) Minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 27(4):302–307. doi:10.1097/GCO.0000000000000187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ran L, Jin J, Xu Y, Bu Y, Song F (2014) Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9(9):e108361. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108361

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS, Kim KH, Carlson MJ, Phillips GS et al (2009) Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: Robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol 113(1):36–41. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seror J, Bats AS, Huchon C, Bensaïd C, Douay-Hauser N, Lécuru F (2014) Laparoscopy vs robotics in surgical management of endometrial cancer: comparison of intraoperative and postoperative complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(1):120–125. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.07.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer A, Boggess JF (2008) Robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging and radical hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system. Gynecol Oncol 111(2 Suppl):S18–S23. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.07.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shah NT, Wright KN, Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Einarsson JI, Muto MG (2011) The feasibility of societal cost equivalence between robotic hysterectomy and alternate hysterectomy methods for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011:570464. doi:10.1155/2011/570464

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shazly SA, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Famuyide AO (2015) Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 138(2):457–4571. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.06.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam A, Kim KH, Bryant SA, Zhang B, Sikes C, Kimball KJ et al (2011) A cohort study evaluating robotic versus laparotomy surgical outcomes of obese women with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 122(3):604–607. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.05.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tang KY, Gardiner SK, Gould C, Osmundsen B, Collins M, Winter WE 3rd (2012) Robotic surgical staging for obese patients with endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206(6):513.e1-6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turunen H, Pakarinen P, Sjöberg J, Loukovaara M (2013) Laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted surgery for endometrial carcinoma in a centre with long laparoscopic experience. J Obstet Gynaecol 33(7):720–724. doi:10.3109/01443615.2013.812623

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Venkat P, Chen LM, Young-Lin N, Kiet TK, Young G, Amatori D et al (2012) An economic analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: Costs, charges and reimbursements to hospitals and professionals. Gynecol Oncol 125(1):237–240. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verheijen R, Zweemer R (2012) Robotic surgery for gynaecologic cancer: an overview. Curr Oncol Rep 14(6):544–549. doi:10.1007/s11912-012-0270-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS et al (2009) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27(32):5331–5336. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M et al (2015) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 13 December 2015

  • Zhou J, Xiong BH, Ma L, Cheng Y, Huang W, Zhao L (2015) Robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. doi:10.1002/rcs.1652

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiaxin Yang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xie, W., Cao, D., Yang, J. et al. Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 142, 2173–2183 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-016-2180-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-016-2180-x

Keywords

Navigation