Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31956926›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2020

Robotic versus laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anastasia Prodromidou, Eleftherios Spartalis, Gerasimos Tsourouflis, Dimitrios Dimitroulis, Nikolaos Nikiteas

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anastasia ProdromidouHellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens, Greece. a.prodromidou@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4250-1853
Eleftherios SpartalisHellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens, Greece.
Gerasimos TsourouflisHellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens, Greece.
Dimitrios DimitroulisHellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens, Greece.
Nikolaos NikiteasHellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single-site hysterectomy (SSH) laparoscopic or robotic presented distinct advantages with regards to postoperative cosmetic outcome, wound-related complications and morbidity. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of robotic and laparoscopic SSH in patients with benign or early-stage malignant gynecological conditions and to compare the two approaches. A systematic search of four electronic databases for articles published up to September 2019 was performed. Studies reporting outcomes for women who underwent robotic or laparoscopic SSH were considered eligible. A total of 6 studies with 412 patients were included. Among them, 150 women had robotic SSH, whereas 262 had laparoscopic SSH. Neither total operative time nor total hysterectomy time were found different among the 2 groups (355 patients MD 17.47 min, 95% CI - 5.82 to 40.76, p = 0.14 and 285 patients MD 6.41 min, 95% CI - 10.24 to 23.06, p = 0.45, respectively). Robotic approach presented significantly lower blood loss and hospital stay compared to laparoscopic (287 patients MD - 10.84 ml 95% CI - 20.35 to - 1.32, p = 0.03, 328 patients MD - 0.32 days, 95% CI - 0.44 to - 0.19, p < 0.00001, respectively). No difference was found with regards to major or overall postoperative complications. The present meta-analysis supports the use of robotic SSH, since it was related to faster recovery and comparable operative times and complication rates compared to laparoscopic. Nonetheless, due to the limited number of the included studies and their retrospective nature, the aforementioned outcomes must be interpreted with caution and further larger volume studies are needed in the field.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalFeasibility StudiesFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansHysterectomyLaparoscopyLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic hysterectomyMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic hysterectomySingle port siteSingle site

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.