Robot-assisted laparoscopy does not have demonstrable advantages over conventional laparoscopy in endometriosis surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundEndometriosis 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.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of these two procedures.MethodsA 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).ResultsOur 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.ConclusionRAL does not have statistically demonstrable advantages over CL in terms of perioperative outcomes for endometriosis-related surgery.