Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate available evidence on robot-assisted surgery compared with open and laparoscopic surgery.
METHOD: The databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing robot-assisted surgery with open and laparoscopic surgery regardless of surgical procedure. Meta-analyses were performed on each outcome with appropriate data material available. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate risk of bias on a study level. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence of the meta-analyses.
RESULTS: This review included 20 studies comprising 981 patients. The meta-analyses found no significant differences between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery regarding blood loss, complication rates, and hospital stay. A significantly longer operative time was found for robot-assisted surgery. Open versus robot-assisted surgery was investigated in 3 studies. A lower blood loss and a longer operative time were found after robot-assisted surgery. No other difference was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: At this point there is not enough evidence to support the significantly higher costs with the implementation of robot-assisted surgery.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy and Percutaneous Techniques |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Pages (from-to) | 117-23 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| ISSN | 1530-4515 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Apr 2016 |
Keywords
- Journal Article