Surgical Outcomes Following Robotic Single-Site Versus Multiport Hysterectomy for Treatment of Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) has emerged as a novel surgical approach for the treatment of endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). Current research regarding the benefits of RSSH compared to robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) for these indications has been inconc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) CA), 2023-02, Vol.15 (2), p.e34702-e34702
Main Authors: Schnittka, Emma, Lanpher, Nick W, Cushing-Murray, Jessica, Decker, Trevor, Patel, Praful G
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Abdomen
Endometrial cancer
Gynecology
Hospital costs
Hyperplasia
Hysterectomy
Laparoscopy
Length of stay
Lymphatic system
Medical prognosis
Meta-analysis
Obstetrics
Obstetrics/Gynecology
Oncology
Oophorectomy
Patients
Robotics
Surgery
Surgical outcomes
Systematic review
Tumors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) has emerged as a novel surgical approach for the treatment of endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). Current research regarding the benefits of RSSH compared to robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) for these indications has been inconclusive. Our team sought to compare surgical outcomes between these two approaches of robotic hysterectomy via systematic review and meta-analysis to ensure optimal surgical practices. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Checklist guided our review. MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Library were searched, yielding 59 results. Articles were filtered by title and abstract and then reviewed in full for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria required that (1) studies compared outcomes for RSSH and RMPH, (2) hysterectomy was indicated for endometrial cancer or hyperplasia with atypia, and (3) studies were available in English. Excluded studies (1) compared single-site and multiport laparoscopic approaches, (2) compared robotic approaches to laparoscopic or abdominal (open) techniques, and (3) employed hysterectomy for benign conditions. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger Regression Correlation analysis. Four studies complied with the selection criteria, comprising 138 patients in the RSSH group and 259 in the RMPH group. Similar outcomes were noted across all measures, including conversion rate (relative risk [RR] = 1.84 and confidence interval [CI] = 0.99-3.43), blood loss (Cohen's = 1.05 and = 18.62), operating time (Cohen's = 0.29 and = 4.38), and length of hospital stay (Cohen's = 1.06 and = 3.86). Publication bias was deemed minimal as indicated by Egger regression values of less than 0.05. These findings suggest that either a surgical approach or AEH with the proper standard of care can provide patients with endometrial cancer.
ISSN:2168-8184
2168-8184
DOI:10.7759/cureus.34702