Robotic‐assisted laparoscopic versus abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Author:

Chen Weiqi12,Ma Jun1,Yang Zhao23,Han Xiao4,Hu Chenyang1,Wang Huai1,Peng Ying5,Zhang Lei3,Jiang Bin12

Affiliation:

1. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences Peking University Health Science Center Beijing China

2. Public Policy Research Center Peking University Beijing China

3. Peking University First Hospital Beijing China

4. School of Public Health Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai China

5. Peking University Third Hospital Beijing China

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundMyomectomy is the preferred treatment for women with uterine fibroids and fertility requirements. There are three modalities are used in clinical practice for myomectomy: abdominal myomectomy (AM), laparoscopic myomectomy (LM), and robot‐assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RLM).ObjectivesTo compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of RLM, AM, and LM.Search StrategyWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Clinical Trials for relevant literature published between January 2000 and January 2023.Selection CriteriaWe included all studies reporting peri‐ and postoperative outcomes of myomectomy in patients with uterine myomas. Surgical treatments were classified as RLM, LM, or AM.Data Collection and AnalysisTwo or more authors selected studies independently, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We derived mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, subgrouping trials by the patient characteristics and myoma characteristics. We used the I2 statistic to quantify heterogeneity and the random‐effects model for meta‐analysis when appropriate. We used the funnel plot to assess the publication bias.Main ResultsA total of 32 studies with 6357 patients were included, of which 1982 women had undergone RLM. The operating time was significantly longer (MD = 43.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.22–61.93, P < 0.001), and the incidence of cesarean section after myomectomy was significantly lower (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.10–0.78, P = 0.02) in RLM than in LM. Compared with AM, the operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, complication rate, total cost, length of hospital stay, and pregnancy rate of patients with RLM were significantly different.ConclusionsThe safety and effectiveness of RLM are superior to those of AM but inferior to those of LM.

Funder

National Science Foundation

Publisher

Wiley

Reference44 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3