Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years

Abstract

Background: Robotic surgery has been in existence for 30 years. This study aimed to evaluate the overall perioperative outcomes of robotic surgery compared with open surgery (OS) and conventional minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across various surgical procedures.

Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from 1990 up to October 2013 with no language restriction. Relevant review articles were hand-searched for remaining studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies (PROs) on perioperative outcomes, regardless of patient age and sex, were included. Primary outcomes were blood loss, blood transfusion rate, operative time, length of hospital stay, and 30-day overall complication rate.

Results: We identified 99 relevant articles (108 studies, 14,448 patients). For robotic versus OS, 50 studies (11 RCTs, 39 PROs) demonstrated reduction in blood loss [ratio of means (RoM) 0.505, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.408-0.602], transfusion rate [risk ratio (RR) 0.272, 95 % CI 0.165-0.449], length of hospital stay (RoM 0.695, 0.615-0.774), and 30-day overall complication rate (RR 0.637, 0.483-0.838) in favour of robotic surgery. For robotic versus MIS, 58 studies (21 RCTs, 37 PROs) demonstrated reduced blood loss (RoM 0.853, 0.736-0.969) and transfusion rate (RR 0.621, 0.390-0.988) in favour of robotic surgery but similar length of hospital stay (RoM 0.982, 0.936-1.027) and 30-day overall complication rate (RR 0.988, 0.822-1.188). In both comparisons, robotic surgery prolonged operative time (OS: RoM 1.073, 1.022-1.124; MIS: RoM 1.135, 1.096-1.173). The benefits of robotic surgery lacked robustness on RCT-sensitivity analyses. However, many studies, including the relatively few available RCTs, suffered from high risk of bias and inadequate statistical power.

Conclusions: Our results showed that robotic surgery contributed positively to some perioperative outcomes but longer operative times remained a shortcoming. Better quality evidence is needed to guide surgical decision making regarding the precise clinical targets of this innovation in the next generation of its use.

Keywords: Conventional surgery; Perioperative outcomes; Robotic surgery.

Fig. 1

Timeline demonstrating selected events in the history and development of surgical robots

Fig. 2

Flow chart of included studies. *Some articles contained more than one comparison or study (see text). OS open surgery, MIS minimally invasive surgery, RCT randomised controlled trial

Fig. 3

Risk of bias graphs of randomised controlled trials comparing robotic versus open surgery (above) and robotic versus minimally invasive surgery (below)

Fig. 4

Forest plots of blood loss; robotic versus open surgery (above), robotic versus minimally invasive surgery (below)

Fig. 5

Pooled proportional change in perioperative outcomes for robotic versus open surgery and robotic versus minimally invasive surgery, with 95 % confidence interval. RoM ratio of means, RR risk ratio, OS open surgery, MIS minimally invasive surgery. *Significant effect