Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41521312›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic total hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease: an RCT-only, GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of operative outcomes and perioperative morbidity.

Wajahat Mirza, Farzana Noor, Mahnoor Afridi, Mehak Ejaz Khan, Hania Iqbal, Alishbah Khan

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Wajahat MirzaShifa College of Medicine, Shifa Tameer-e-Millat University, Sector H-8/4, Islamabad, Pakistan. wajahatmirza.clinicalresearch@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-9811-7754
Farzana NoorConsultant Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Mahnoor AfridiRawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Mehak Ejaz KhanResident General Surgery, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Hania IqbalResident General Surgery, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Alishbah KhanResident General Surgery, Shifa International Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy has gained widespread adoption for benign gynecologic diseases despite its higher cost and ongoing debate over its clinical superiority compared to conventional laparoscopy. Although many comparative studies exist, no meta-analysis has exclusively synthesized randomized controlled trial evidence with a comprehensive GRADE certainty assessment of all clinically relevant, perioperative outcomes.

methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered (PROSPERO ID: CRD420251183072). We systematically searched major databases from inception through November 1, 2025, for randomized controlled trials comparing robotic total laparoscopic hysterectomy (R-TLH) with conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy (C-TLH) for benign indications. Two independent reviewers screened the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for operative duration, estimated blood loss, conversion to laparotomy, length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications. Heterogeneity was quantified using I² statistics, and comprehensive sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. The certainty of the evidence for each outcome was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

resultsFour trials (N = 375 patients) met the inclusion criteria, with 185 and 190 patients in the R-TLH and C-TLH groups, respectively. The total operative time did not differ significantly between the R-TLH and C-TLH groups (mean difference [MD] 11.79 min, 95% CI - 24.59 to 48.17; very low certainty). R-TLH was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay (MD - 0.64 days, 95% CI - 1.10 to - 0.17; moderate certainty). No significant differences were observed in conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10-2.46; low certainty), any postoperative complication (composite as defined by individual trials) (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.21-1.58; moderate certainty), estimated blood loss (MD - 17.81 mL, 95% CI - 74.31 to 38.68; low certainty), or vaginal cuff hematoma (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.05-1.62; low certainty). Sensitivity analyses yielded consistent results.

conclusionBased on the highest level of evidence exclusively from randomized trials, robotic and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy demonstrate comparable operative outcomes for benign disease, with the robotic approach offering modestly shorter hospitalization. Given the substantial cost differences, conventional laparoscopy remains a clinically equivalent option for most patients requiring cholecystectomy.

Indexed as

Genital Diseases, FemaleHysterectomyLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeBenign gynecologic diseaseGRADELaparoscopic hysterectomyMeta-analysisMinimally invasive surgeryPerioperative outcomesRandomized controlled trialsRobotic hysterectomySystematic review

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.