Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38753180›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024

Robotic assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for deep endometriosis: a meta-analysis of current evidence.

Matteo Pavone, Alessandro Baroni, Federica Campolo, Marta Goglia, Diego Raimondo, Antonella Carcagnì, Cherif Akladios, Jacques Marescaux, Francesco Fanfani, Giovanni Scambia and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative StudyReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

11 authors.

Matteo PavoneUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. matteo.pavone@guest.policlinicogemelli.it.
Alessandro BaroniUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. baronial.ab@gmail.com.
Federica CampoloUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Marta GogliaDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Diego RaimondoDivision of Gynecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), IRCCS, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Antonella CarcagnìFacility of Epidemiology and Biostatistics - Gemelli Generator, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Cherif AkladiosDepartment of Gynecologic Surgery, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Jacques MarescauxResearch Institute against Digestive Cancer, IRCAD, Strasbourg, France.
Francesco FanfaniUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni ScambiaUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Manuel Maria IanieriUOC Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze per la salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endometriosis is a benign inflammatory onco-mimetic disease affecting 10-15% of women in the world. When it is refractory to medical treatments, surgery may be required. Usually, laparoscopy is the preferred approach, but robotic surgery has gained popularity in the last 15 years. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (LPS) in the treatment of endometriosis. This study adheres to PRISMA guidelines and is registered with PROSPERO. Studies reporting perioperative data comparing RAS and LPS surgery in patients with endometriosis querying PubMed, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov were included in the analysis. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool (QUADAS-2) was used for the quality assessment of the selected articles. Fourteen studies were identified, including 2709 patients with endometriosis stage I-IV for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between RAS and LPS in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversion rate and estimated blood loss. However, patients in the RAS group have a longer operative time (p < 0.0001) and longer hospital stay (p = 0.020) than those in the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery is not inferior to laparoscopy in patients with endometriosis in terms of surgical outcomes; however, RAS requires longer operative times and longer hospital stay. The benefits of robotic surgery should be sought in the easiest potential integration of robotic platforms with new technologies. Prospective studies comparing laparoscopy to the new robotic systems are desirable for greater robustness of scientific evidence.

Indexed as

EndometriosisLaparoscopyOperative TimeRobotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeEndometriosisImage-guided surgeryMinimally Invasive surgeryRASRobotic assisted surgeryRobotic platforms

Identifiers

PMID38753180
PMCPMC11098866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.