Comparative efficacy of robotic assisted versus laparoscopic gynecologic surgery in Southeast Asia: a systematic review

Binita Neupane; Ashish Singh; Heera P.; Sonia Naik

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20263548

Authors

Binita Neupane Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Max Smart Super Specialty Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India
Ashish Singh Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Max Smart Super Specialty Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India
Heera P. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Max Smart Super Specialty Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India
Sonia Naik Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Max Smart Super Specialty Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20263548

Keywords:

Gynecology, Laparoscopic surgery, Minimally invasive surgery, Robotic-assisted surgery, Systematic review, Southeast Asia

Abstract

With scientific evolution, the minimally invasive surgical techniques such as laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), have completely transformed gynecologic procedures by reducing patient morbidity, hospital stay and post procedure recovery. While there are several global literatures to validate these modalities, a focused analysis in Southeast Asia countries remains limited. To systematically compare published medical literatures on perioperative outcomes of RAS and LS in gynecologic surgeries across Southeast Asian countries. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and regional databases up to May 2025. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies from Southeast Asia comparing RAS and LS in gynecologic procedures, reporting on operative time, blood loss, complication rates, conversion rates and hospital stay. During the review, we identified 1,200 articles, 15 met inclusion criteria, encompassing 4,500 patients (RAS: 2,100; LS: 2,400). It was observed that RAS demonstrated reduced blood loss (mean difference: -50 mL; 95% CI: -70 to -30 mL) and shorter hospital stay (mean difference: -1.2 days; 95% CI: -1.5 to -0.9 days). However, operative times were observed to be longer in RAS (mean difference: +30 minutes; 95% CI: +20 to +40 minutes). However, no significant differences were observed in overall complication or conversion rates. In Southeast Asia, RAS offers advantages in blood loss and hospitalization duration over LS in gynecologic surgeries, albeit with increased operative times. These findings can facilitate surgical decision-making process, balancing benefits against resource availability.

References

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Robot-assisted surgery for noncancerous gynecologic conditions. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 810. Obstet Gynecol 2020;136:22-30.

Ng JS, Leitao MM, Lim PC, Kim TJ, Kim SW. Asian Society for Gynecologic Robotic Surgery consensus guidelines on robotic surgery in gynecological cancer. Gynecologic Robotic Surg. 2024;5(1):8–19.

Roh HF, Nam SH, Kim JM. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2018;13(1):191628.

Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu D, Dowswell T, Song H, Wang L, et al. Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Datab Systematic Rev. 2019;4(4):11422.

Kawka M, Fong Y, Gall TMH. (2023). Laparoscopic versus robotic abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Surgical Endosc. 2023;37(9):6672–81.

Zhou Z, Ge J, Ye K, Zhang Y, Hu Q, Wang L. Comparison of robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopy for para-aortic lymphadenectomy in gynecological malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Surg. 2023;9:843517.

Lu Y, Chen J, Wei R, Lin W, Chen Y, Su Y, et al. Application of robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery in lymph node dissection for gynecological cancer: a meta-analysis. Oncology Letters. 2023;25(5):175.

Tsakos E, Xydias EM, Ziogas AC, Sorrentino F, Nappi L, Vlachos N, et al. Multi-port robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative clinical and fertility outcomes. J Clin Med. 2023;12(12):4134.

Gala RB, Margulies R, Steinberg A, Murphy M, Lukban J, Jeppson P, et al. Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(3):353-61.

Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, Lewin SN, Charles AS, Kim JH, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(8):783–91.

Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689–98.

Lim TY, Lin KK, Wong WL, Aggarwal IM, Yam PK. Surgical and oncological outcome of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in early cervical cancer in Singapore. Gynecol Min Inv Ther. 2019;8(2): 53–8.

Wong J, Ng J. Introduction of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer is associated with lower bill sizes: The experience of a tertiary oncological centre in Singapore. Gynecol Robotic Surg. 2020;1:61–5.

Wong JJL, Chan GMF, Low JJH, Ng JS. (2023). A perfect match: the story of robotics in gynaecology. Ann Acad Med, Singapore, 2023;52(6):331-2.

Lim PC, Crane JT, English EJ, Farnam RW, Garza DM, Winter ML, et al. (2016). Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons for benign indications. Int Gynecol Obst. 2016;33(3):359–64.

Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, et al. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecol. 2008;199(4):360–9.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;3:72.

Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. 2000;2:87

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.

Mehta A, Ng JC, Awuah WA, Huang H, Kalmanovich J, Agrawal A, et al. Embracing robotic surgery in low- and middle-income countries: potential benefits, challenges and scope in the future. Ann Med Surg. 2022;84:104803.

Colacurci D, Bifulco G, Ascione M, Shehaj I, Rad MT, Gasimli K, et al. Robotic surgery in gynecology: balancing clinical benefit, cost-effectiveness and accessibility. J Clin Med. 2006;15(10):3628.