Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Apr 15;4(4):CD011422.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

Theresa A Lawrie  1 , Hongqian Liu, DongHao Lu, Therese Dowswell, Huan Song, Lei Wang, Gang Shi
Affiliations

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

Theresa A Lawrie et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.

Search methods: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid, on 8 January 2018. We searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov. on 16 January 2018.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RAS versus CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We examined different procedures in separate comparisons and for hysterectomy subgrouped data according to type of disease (non-malignant versus malignant). When more than one study contributed data, we pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3.

Main results: We included 12 RCTs involving 1016 women. Studies were at moderate to high overall risk of bias, and we downgraded evidence mainly due to concerns about risk of bias in the studies contributing data and imprecision of effect estimates. Procedures performed were hysterectomy (eight studies) and sacrocolpopexy (three studies). In addition, one trial examined surgical treatment for endometriosis, which included resection or hysterectomy. Among studies of women undergoing hysterectomy procedures, two studies involved malignant disease (endometrial cancer); the rest involved non-malignant disease.• RAS versus CLS (hysterectomy)Low-certainty evidence suggests there might be little or no difference in any complication rates between RAS and CLS (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.59; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 51%), intraoperative complication rates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.50; participants = 583; studies = 6; I² = 37%), postoperative complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34; participants = 629; studies = 6; I² = 44%), and blood transfusions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.94; participants = 442; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference between malignant and non-malignant disease subgroups with regard to complication rates. Only one study reported death within 30 days and no deaths occurred (very low-certainty evidence). Researchers reported no survival outcomes.Mean total operating time was longer on average in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) 41.18 minutes, 95% CI -6.17 to 88.53; participants = 148; studies = 2; I² = 80%; very low-certainty evidence), and the mean length of hospital stay was slightly shorter with RAS than with CLS (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07; participants = 192; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).• RAS versus CLS (sacrocolpopexy)Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in rates of any complications between women undergoing sacrocolpopexy by RAS or CLS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.24; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 78%), nor in intraoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.59; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 47%). Low-certainty evidence on postoperative complications suggests these might be higher with RAS (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.56; studies = 1; participants = 68). Researchers did not report blood transfusions and deaths up to 30 days.Low-certainty evidence suggests that RAS might be associated with increased operating time (MD 40.53 min, 95% CI 12.06 to 68.99; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 73%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two techniques in terms of duration of stay (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.67; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 0%).• RAS versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy)A single study with a total sample size of 20 women was included in this comparison. For most outcomes, the sample size was insufficient to show any possible differences between groups.• RAS versus CLS for endometriosisA single study with data for 73 women was included in this comparison; women with endometriosis underwent procedures ranging from relatively minor endometrial resection through hysterectomy; many of the women included in this study had undergone previous surgery for their condition. For most outcomes, event rates were low, and the sample size was insufficient to detect potential differences between groups.

Authors' conclusions: Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS for non-malignant disease (hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy) is of low certainty but suggests that surgical complication rates might be comparable. Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for malignant disease is more uncertain because survival data are lacking. RAS is an operator-dependent expensive technology; therefore evaluating the safety of this technology independently will present challenges.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Hongqian Liu: none known. Theresa A. Lawrie: none known. DongHao Lu: none known. Therese Dowswell: none known. Huan Song: none known. Lei Wang: none known. Gang Shi: none known.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram for updated searches (30 June 2014).
2
2
Study flow diagram for updated search (8 January 2018).
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 1 Intraoperative and postoperative complications.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 2 Intraoperative complications.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 3 Complications: intraoperative injury.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 4 Postoperative complications.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 5 Complications: bleeding.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 6 Complications: infection.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 7 Total operating time.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 8 Operating room time [min].
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 9 Overall hospital stay.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 10 Conversion to another approach.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 11 Blood transfusions.
1.12
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 12 Estimated blood loss.
1.13
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 13 Pain at 1 to 2 weeks.
1.14
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 14 Quality of life (6 weeks).
1.15
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 15 Quality of life (6 months).
1.16
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 16 Re‐intervention.
1.17
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 17 Re‐admission.
1.18
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 18 Overall cost.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 1 Intraoperative and postoperative complications.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 2 Intraoperative complications.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 3 Complications: intraoperative injury.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 4 Postoperative complications.
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 6 Complications: infection.
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 7 Total operating time.
2.8
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 8 Operating room time [min].
2.9
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 9 Overall hospital stay.
2.10
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 10 Conversion to another approach.
2.12
2.12. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 12 Estimated blood loss.
2.13
2.13. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 13 Pain at 1 to 2 weeks.
2.14
2.14. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 14 Quality of life (6 weeks).
2.16
2.16. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 16 Re‐intervention.
2.18
2.18. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 18 Overall cost.
2.19
2.19. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 19 Complications: urinary incontinence.
2.20
2.20. Analysis
Comparison 2 Robot‐assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (sacrocolpopexy)), Outcome 20 Complications: sexual dysfunction.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 1 Intraoperative and postoperative complications.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 2 Intraoperative complications.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 3 Postoperative complications.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 4 Death within 30 days.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 5 Complications: bleeding.
3.6
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 Robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 6 Complications: infection.
3.7
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3 Robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 7 Blood transfusions.
3.8
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3 Robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 8 Quality of life (4 weeks).
3.9
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3 Robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 9 Re‐admission.
3.10
3.10. Analysis
Comparison 3 Robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 10 Overall cost.
3.11
3.11. Analysis
Comparison 3 Robot‐assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy), Outcome 11 Lymph node yield.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Robot‐assisted surgery for endometriosis versus conventional laparoscopic surgery, Outcome 1 Intraoperative complications.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Robot‐assisted surgery for endometriosis versus conventional laparoscopic surgery, Outcome 2 Postoperative complications.
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Robot‐assisted surgery for endometriosis versus conventional laparoscopic surgery, Outcome 3 Complications: infection.
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Robot‐assisted surgery for endometriosis versus conventional laparoscopic surgery, Outcome 4 Total operating time.
4.5
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 Robot‐assisted surgery for endometriosis versus conventional laparoscopic surgery, Outcome 5 Operating room time [min].
4.6
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4 Robot‐assisted surgery for endometriosis versus conventional laparoscopic surgery, Outcome 6 Conversion to another approach.
4.7
4.7. Analysis
Comparison 4 Robot‐assisted surgery for endometriosis versus conventional laparoscopic surgery, Outcome 7 Estimated blood loss.
4.8
4.8. Analysis
Comparison 4 Robot‐assisted surgery for endometriosis versus conventional laparoscopic surgery, Outcome 8 Quality of life (6 weeks).
4.9
4.9. Analysis
Comparison 4 Robot‐assisted surgery for endometriosis versus conventional laparoscopic surgery, Outcome 9 Quality of life (6 months).
4.10
4.10. Analysis
Comparison 4 Robot‐assisted surgery for endometriosis versus conventional laparoscopic surgery, Outcome 10 Re‐admission.
4.11
4.11. Analysis
Comparison 4 Robot‐assisted surgery for endometriosis versus conventional laparoscopic surgery, Outcome 11 Pain at 6 months.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Anger 2014 {published data only}
    1. Anger J, Mueller E, Tarnay C, Brubaker L, Rosenman A, Smith B. Abdominal colpopexy: comparison of endoscopic surgical strategies. Journal of Urology. 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association, AUA Atlanta, GA United States. Conference Start: 20120519 Conference End: 20120523. Conference Publication:(var.pagings). 2012:e864.
    1. Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Erratum: Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial (Obstetrics and Gynecology). Obstetrics and Gynecology 2014;124(1):165. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2014;123(1):5‐12. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kenton K, Mueller E, Tarnay C, Brubaker L, Rosenman A, Smith B, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical vaginal prolapse: one year outcomes. Journal of Urology Conference: 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association, AUA San Diego, CA United States. Conference Start: 20130504 Conference End: 20130508. Conference Publication:(var.pagings). 2013:e877‐8.
    1. Kenton K, Mueller ER, Tarney C, Bresee C, Anger JT. One‐year outcomes after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 2016;22(5):382‐4. - PMC - PubMed
Costantini 2017 {published data only}
    1. Costantini E, Biase M, Zucchi A, Cagini R, Rienzo G, Tonno P, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial, a comparison of two techniques. Neurourology and Urodynamics Conference: 41st Annual Congress of the Italian Urodynamic Society Italy 2017;36:S16‐S7.
    1. Costantini E, Zucchi A, Biase M, Rienzo G, Orcidi D, Carbone A, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial in the era of minimally invasive surgery. Neurourology and urodynamics Conference: 47th annual meeting of the international continence society, ICS 2017 Italy 2017;36:S434‐S5.
    1. Illiano E, Biase M, Rienzo G, Tonno P, Costantini E, Maglia D, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy: a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Urology Conference: 112th Annual Meeting of the American Urological Association, AUA 2017 United States 2017;197(4 Suppl 1):e354‐e5.
Deimling 2017 {published data only}
    1. Deimling TA, Eldridge JL, Riley KA, Kunselman AR, Harkins GJ. Randomized controlled trial comparing operative times between standard and robot‐assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2017;136(1):64‐9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deimling TA, Eldridge JL, Riley KA, Kunselman AR, Harkins GJ. Standard versus robot‐assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2015;22 Suppl 1(6):S7‐S8. - PubMed
Green 2013 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Green JL, Deimling T, Tam T, Davies MF, Harkins GJ. A randomized controlled trial comparing conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy with robot‐assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy in a teaching institution. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Conference: 42nd Global Congress of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, AAGL 2013 Washington, DC, United States. Conference Start: 20131110 Conference End: 20131114. Conference Publication:(var.pagings). 2013:S4.
    1. Harkins G. Study of conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy versus robot‐assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy at a teaching institution. Clinicaltrials.gov 2012; Vol. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01581905?term=NCT01581905&rank=1, issue accessed 4 July 2014.
LAROSE 2017 {published data only}
    1. Soto E. Laparoscopy vs. robotic surgery for endometriosis (LAROSE): a prospective randomized controlled trial [NCT01556204]. Clinicaltrials.gov 2012. - PubMed
    1. Soto E, Luu TH, Liu X, Magrina JF, Einarsson JI, Falcone T. Laparoscopy vs robotic surgery for endometriosis (LAROSE): a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction Conference: 32nd Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology Finland 2016;31:i87.
    1. Soto E, Luu TH, Liu X, Magrina JF, Einarsson JI, Falcone T. Laparoscopy vs. robotic surgery for endometriosis (LAROSE): a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 2016;31 Supp1:i87 Abstract no: O‐202. - PubMed
    1. Soto E, Luu TH, Liu X, Magrina JF, Wasson MN, Einarsson JI, et al. Laparoscopy vs. robotic surgery for endometriosis (LAROSE): a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 2017;107(4):996‐1002.e3. - PubMed
Lonnerfors 2014 {published data only}
    1. Lonnerfors C, Reynisson P, Persson J. A randomized trial comparing vaginal‐ and laparoscopic hysterectomy to robot‐assisted hysterectomy. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2014;Jul 18:doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.07.010. [Epub ahead of print]. - PubMed
    1. Persson J. Robotic hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy or traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy [NCT01865929]. Clinicaltrials.gov 2013.
Maenpaa 2016 {published data only}
    1. Mäenpää MM, Nieminen K, Tomás EI, Laurila M, Luukkaala TH, Mäenpää JU. Robotic‐assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2016;215(5):588.e1‐7. - PubMed
Paraiso 2011 {published data only}
    1. Frick AC, Barber MD, Jelovsek JE, Fu Z, Chen G, Paraiso MR. Cost analysis of laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy in a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Pelvic Medicine and Surgery 2011;17 Suppl 1(2):17. [37th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, SGS 2011 San Antonio, TX United States]
    1. Paraiso M, Chen C, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Barber MD. Conventional laparoscopic versus robotic‐assisted laparoscopic sacral colpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Pelvic Medicine and Surgery 2010;16 Suppl 2(5):58‐9. [31st Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Urogynecologic Society, AUGS Long Beach, CA United States]
    1. Paraiso MF, Chen CC, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Barber MD. Conventional laparoscopic versus robotic‐assisted laparoscopic sacral colpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2010;17 Suppl 1(6):25. [39th Global Congress of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, AAGL 2010 Las Vegas, NV United States]
    1. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011;118(5):1005‐13. - PubMed
    1. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic versus robotic‐assisted laparoscopic sacral colpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2010;29(6):964‐5. [Joint Annual Meeting of the International Continence Society, ICS and International Urogynecological Association, IUGA Toronto, ON Canada]
Paraiso 2013 {published data only}
    1. Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2013;208(5):368.e361‐368.e367. - PubMed
RASHEC 2013 {published data only}
    1. Falconer H. Robotic versus abdominal surgery for endometrial cancer (RASHEC) [NCT01847703]. Clinicaltrials.gov 2013.
    1. Salehi S, Avall‐Lundqvist E, Legerstam B, Carlson JW, Falconer H. Robot‐assisted laparoscopy versus laparotomy for infrarenal paraaortic lymphadenectomy in women with high‐risk endometrial cancer: a randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Cancer 2017;79:81‐9. - PubMed
Sarlos 2010 {published data only}
    1. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Felten S, Schar G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012;3:604‐11. - PubMed
    1. Sarlos D, Kots LV, Stevanovic N, Schar G. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: costs and preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2010;282 Suppl:11‐2. [58th Congress of the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Gynakologie und Geburtshilfe, DGGG) Munich Germany]
Wijk 2016 {published data only}
    1. Wijk L, Nilsson K, Ljungqvist O. Metabolic and inflammatory responses and subsequent recovery in robotic versus abdominal hysterectomy: a randomised controlled study. Clinical Nutrition 2016;pii: S0261‐5614(16):31356‐5. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Advincula 2007 {published data only}
    1. Advincula AP, Xiao Xu, Goudeau S, Ransom SB. Robot‐assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short‐term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2007;14(6):698‐705. - PubMed
Arms 2015 {published data only}
    1. Arms RG 3rd, Sun CC, Burzawa JK, Fleming ND, Nick AM, Rallapalli V, et al. Improvement in quality of life after robotic surgery results in patient satisfaction. Gynecologic Oncology 2015;138(3):727‐30. - PMC - PubMed
Asciutto 2015 {published data only}
    1. Asciutto KC, Kalapotharakos G, Löfgren M, Högberg T, Borgfeldt C. Robot‐assisted surgery in cervical cancer patients reduces the time to normal activities of daily living. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2015;94(3):260‐5. - PubMed
Bell 2008 {published data only}
    1. Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri‐Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecologic Oncology 2008;111(3):407‐11. - PubMed
Best 2014 {published data only}
    1. Best J, Day L, Ingram L, Musgrave B, Rushing H, Schooley B. Comparison of robotic vs standard surgical procedure on postoperative nursing care of women undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy. Medical‐Surgical Nursing 2014;23(6):414‐21. - PubMed
Boggess 2008a {published data only}
    1. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, et al. A case‐control study of robot‐assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;199(4):357.e1‐7. - PubMed
Boggess 2008b {published data only}
    1. 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 Gynecology 2008;199(4):360.e1‐9. - PubMed
Bogliolo 2015 {published data only}
    1. Bogliolo S, Cassani C, Musacchi V, Babilonti L, Gardella B, Spinillo A. Robotic single‐site surgery in management of obese patients with early‐stage endometrial cancer. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2015;22(4):697‐9. - PubMed
Campos 2013 {published data only}
    1. Campos LS, Limberger LF, Stein AT, Kalil AN. Postoperative pain and perioperative outcomes after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2013;14:293. - PMC - PubMed
Cantrell 2010 {published data only}
    1. Cantrell LA, Mendivil A, Gehrig PA, Boggess JF. Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3‐year experience. Gynecologic Oncology 2010;117(2):260‐5. - PubMed
Cardenas‐Goicoechea 2010 {published data only}
    1. Cardenas‐Goicoechea J, Adams S, Bhat SB, Randall TC. Surgical outcomes of robotic‐assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center. Gynecologic Oncology 2010;117(2):224‐8. [PUBMED: 20144471] - PMC - PubMed
Chen 2015 {published data only}
    1. Chen C, Tanner E, Malpani A, Vedula SS, Fader AN, Scheib SA, et al. Warm‐up before robotic hysterectomy does not improve trainee operative performance: a randomized trial. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2015;22(6S):S34. - PubMed
Chong 2016 {published data only}
    1. Chong GO, Lee YH, Hong DG, Cho YL, Lee YS. Long‐term efficacy of laparoscopic or robotic adenomyomectomy with or without medical treatment for severely symptomatic adenomyosis. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 2016;81(4):346‐52. - PubMed
Culligan 2010 {published data only}
    1. Culligan PJ, Salamon C, Priestley JL, Scherer J, Shariati A. A double‐blind randomized clinical trial comparing porcine dermis and polypropylene mesh for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Journal of Pelvic Medicine and Surgery 2010;16 Suppl 2(5):93. [31st Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Urogynecologic Society, AUGS Long Beach, CA United States]
DeNardis 2008 {published data only}
    1. DeNardis SA, Holloway RW, Bigsby GE 4th, Pikaart DP, Ahmad S, Finkler NJ. Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecologic Oncology 2008;111(3):412‐7. [PUBMED: 18834620] - PubMed
Denstad 2017 {published data only}
    1. Denstad SE, Aasen S, Ostrem AM, Bakkeheim V, Fossum GH, Moen MH. Hysterektomi ved St. Olavs Hospital 1989–2014. Tidsskrift for Den Norske Laegeforening 2017;137:16. - PubMed
Desille‐Gbaguidi 2013 {published data only}
    1. Desille‐Gbaguidi H, Hebert T, Paternotte‐Villemagne J, Gaborit C, Rush E, Body G. Overall care cost comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for endometrial and cervical cancer. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 2013;171(2):348‐52. - PubMed
Diaz‐Feijoo 2016 {published data only}
    1. Díaz‐Feijoo B, Correa‐Paris A, Pérez‐Benavente A, Franco‐Camps S, Sánchez‐Iglesias JL, Cabrera S, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic aortic lymphadenectomy for surgical staging of endometrial and ovarian cancer: the STELLA trial. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2016;23(9):2966‐74. - PubMed
Eklind 2015 {published data only}
    1. Eklind S, Lindfors A, Sjöli P, Dahm‐Kähler P. A prospective, comparative study on robotic versus open‐surgery hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for endometrial carcinoma. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2015;25(2):250‐6. - PubMed
Estape 2009 {published data only}
    1. Estape R, Lambrou N, Diaz R, Estape E, Dunkin N, Rivera A. A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecologic Oncology 2009;113(3):357‐61. [PUBMED: 19345987] - PubMed
Falik 2017 {published data only}
    1. Falik RC. Regarding "Robotic versus laparoscopic staging for early ovarian cancer: a case‐matched control study". Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2017;24(6):1049. - PubMed
Gehrig 2008 {published data only}
    1. Gehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A, Abaid LN, Mendivil A, Boggess JF. What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman?. Gynecologic Oncology 2008;111(1):41‐5. - PubMed
Geisler 2010 {published data only}
    1. Geisler JP, Orr CJ, Khurshid N, Phibbs G, Manahan KJ. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared with open radical hysterectomy. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2010;20(3):438‐42. [PUBMED: 20375811] - PubMed
Gocmen 2013 {published data only}
    1. Gocmen A, Sanlikan F, Ucar MG. Comparison of robotic‐assisted laparoscopic myomectomy outcomes with laparoscopic myomectomy. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2013;287(1):91‐6. - PubMed
Grias 2012 {published data only}
    1. Grias I, Della Badia C. Interrupted vicryl suture vs. barbed suture and vaginal cuff complications after robotic hysterectomy. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Conference: 41st Global Congress of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, AAGL Las Vegas, NV United States. Conference Start: 20121105 Conference End: 20121109. Conference Publication:(var.pagings): S38.. 2012.
Hoekstra 2009 {published data only}
    1. Hoekstra AV, Jairam‐Thodla A, Rademaker A, Singh DK, Buttin BM, Lurain JR, et al. The impact of robotics on practice management of endometrial cancer: transitioning from traditional surgery. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 2009;5(4):392‐7. [PUBMED: 19455550] - PubMed
Iavazzo 2016 {published data only}
    1. Iavazzo C, Iavazzo PE, Gkegkes ID. Obese patients with endometrial cancer: is the robotic approach a challenge or a new era of safer and more cost‐effective management of such patients?. Journal of Robotic Surgery 2016;10(2):183‐4. - PubMed
Jung 2010 {published data only}
    1. Jung YW, Lee DW, Kim SW, Nam EJ, Kim JH, Kim JW, et al. Robot‐assisted staging using three robotic arms for endometrial cancer: comparison to laparoscopy and laparotomy at a single institution. Journal of Surgical Oncology 2010;101(2):116‐21. [PUBMED: 19902479] - PubMed
Kho 2009 {published data only}
    1. Kho R. A trial on laparoscopic hysterectomy versus robotic hysterectomy [NCT00895284]. Clinicaltrials.gov 2009; Vol. trial terminated due to lack of funding.
Kim 2015 {published data only}
    1. Kim JY, Lee YH, Chong GO, Lee YS, Cho YL, Hong DG. Comparative study between total laparoscopic and total robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical carcinoma: clinical study. Anticancer Research 2015;35(9):5015‐21. - PubMed
Kivnick 2013 {published data only}
    1. Kivnick S, Parker W. Robot‐assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2013;121(1):188. - PubMed
Ko 2008 {published data only}
    1. Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Feltmate CM. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecologic Oncology 2008;111(3):425‐30. [PUBMED: 18929400] - PubMed
Lambaudie 2008 {published data only}
    1. Lambaudie E, Houvenaeghel G, Walz J, Bannier M, Buttarelli M, Gurriet B, et al. Robot‐assisted laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology. Surgical Endoscopy 2008;22(12):2743‐7. - PubMed
Lambaudie 2010 {published data only}
    1. Lambaudie E, Narducci F, Bannier M, Jauffret C, Pouget N, Leblanc E, et al. Role of robot‐assisted laparoscopy in adjuvant surgery for locally advanced cervical cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2010;36(4):409‐13. [PUBMED: 20079599] - PubMed
Landeen 2016 {published data only}
    1. Landeen LB, Hultgren EM, Kapsch TM, Mallory PW. Vaginal cuff dehiscence: a randomized trial comparing robotic vaginal cuff closure methods. Journal of Robotic Surgery 2016;10(4):337‐41. - PubMed
Lonnerfors 2009 {published data only}
    1. Lonnerfors C, Persson J. Robot‐assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: a feasible technique for removal of unfavorably localized myomas. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2009;88(9):994‐9. - PubMed
Madhuri 2017 {published data only}
    1. Madhuri TK, Butler‐Manuel S. Robotic‐assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2017;216(6):619. - PubMed
Maggioni 2009 {published data only}
    1. Maggioni A, Minig L, Zanagnolo V, Peiretti M, Sanguineti F, Bocciolone L, et al. Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study. Gynecologic Oncology 2009;115(1):60‐4. [PUBMED: 19638333] - PubMed
Magrina 2008 {published data only}
    1. Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecologic Oncology 2008;109(1):86‐91. - PubMed
Marino 2015 {published data only}
    1. Marino P, Houvenaeghel G, Narducci F, Boyer‐Chammard A, Ferron G, Uzan C, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of conventional vs robotic‐assisted laparoscopy in gynecologic oncologic indications. Internationl Journal of Gynecologic Cancer 2015;25(6):1102‐8. - PubMed
Martinez‐Maestro 2014 {published data only}
    1. Martinez‐Maestre MA, Gambadauro P, Gonzalez‐Cejudo C, Torrejon R. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without robotic assistance: a prospective controlled study. Surgical Innovation 2014;21(3):250‐5. - PubMed
McNanley 2012 {published data only}
    1. McNanley A, Perevich M, Glantz C, Duecy EE, Flynn MK, Buchsbaum G. Bowel function after minimally invasive urogynecologic surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 2012;18(2):82‐5. - PubMed
Nezhat 2008 {published data only}
    1. Nezhat FR, Datta MS, Liu C, Chuang L, Zakashansky K. Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2008;12(3):227‐37. - PMC - PubMed
Ozgun 2017 {published data only}
    1. Ozgun A, Sargin A, Karaman S, Gunusen I, Alper I, Askar FZ. The relationship between the Trendelenburg position and cerebral hypoxia in patients who have undergone robot‐assisted hysterectomy and prostatectomy. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 2017;47(6):1797‐803. - PubMed
Paek 2016 {published data only}
    1. Paek J, Lee JD, Kong TW, Chang SJ, Ryu HS. Robotic single‐site versus laparo‐endoscopic single‐site surgery for adnexal tumours: a propensity score‐matching analysis. International Journal of Medical Robotics + Computer Assisted Surgery 2016;12(4):694‐700. - PubMed
Palmer 2013 {published data only}
    1. Palmer MM, Dahlman M, Eisenstein D, Theoharis E, Fisher J, Wegienka G. Outcomes of vaginal cuff closure techniques in robotic hysterectomy: a prospective randomized trial. In: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology.Conference: 42nd Global Congress of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, AAGL 2013 Washington, DC United States. Conference Start: 20131110 Conference End: 20131114. Conference Publication:(var.pagings):S33.. 2013.
Persson 2009 {published data only}
    1. Persson J, Reynisson P, Borgfeldt C, Kannisto P, Lindahl B, Bossmar T. Robot assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with short and long term morbidity data. Gynecologic Oncology 2009;113(2):185‐90. [PUBMED: 19251308] - PubMed
Ramirez 2009 {published data only}
    1. Ramirez PT. Robotic radical hysterectomy: a new standard of care?. Future Oncology 2009;5(1):23‐5. - PubMed
Ramirez 2018 {published data only}
    1. Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Levenback C. A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer [NCT00614211]. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2008;15(5):584‐8. - PubMed
    1. Ramirez P, Frumowitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Viera M, Ribiero R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2018;379(20):1895‐904. - PubMed
Reza 2010 {published data only}
    1. Reza M, Maeso S, Blasco JA, Andradas E. Meta‐analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. British Journal of Surgery 2010;97(12):1772‐83. - PubMed
Seamon 2009a {published data only}
    1. Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS, Kim KH, Carlson MJ, Phillips GS, et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy?. Gynecologic Oncology 2009;113(1):36‐41. [PUBMED: 19168206] - PubMed
Seamon 2009b {published data only}
    1. Seamon LG, Bryant SA, Rheaume PS, Kimball KJ, Huh WK, Fowler JM, et al. Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2009;114(1):16‐21. [PUBMED: 19546753] - PubMed
Sert 2007 {published data only}
    1. Sert B, Abeler V. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early‐stage cervical carcinoma patients, comparing results with total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy cases. The future is now?. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery 2007;3(3):224‐8. - PubMed
Sert 2009 {published data only}
    1. Sert MB. Robot assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with short and long term morbidity. Gynecologic Oncology 2009; Vol. 115, issue 1:164‐5; author reply 165‐6. [PUBMED: 19539356] - PubMed
Sert 2010 {published data only}
    1. Sert MB. Comparison between robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH): a case control study from EIO/Milan. Gynecologic Oncology 2010;117(2):389. - PubMed
Somashekhar 2014 {published data only}
    1. Ashwin K. Prospective randomized study comparing robotic‐assisted hysterectomy and regional lymphadenectomy with traditional laparotomy for endometrial cancer in India. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2014;34th Congress of the European Society of Surgical Oncology in partnership with BASO 2014 Liverpool United Kingdom:S119‐20.
    1. Somashekhar SP, Jaka RC, Zaveri SS. Prospective randomized study comparing robotic‐assisted hysterectomy and regional lymphadenectomy with traditional laparotomy for staging of endometrial carcinoma ‐ initial Indian experience. Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology 2014;5(3):217‐23. - PMC - PubMed
Tsafrir 2017 {published data only}
    1. Tsafrir Z, Palmer M, Dahlman M, Nawfal AK, Aoun J, Taylor A, et al. Long‐term outcomes for different vaginal cuff closure techniques in robotic‐assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2017;210:7‐12. - PubMed
Veljovich 2008 {published data only}
    1. Veljovich DS, Paley PJ, Drescher CW, Everett EN, Shah C, Peters WA III. Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;198(6):679.e1‐10. - PubMed
Vizza 2014 {published data only}
    1. Vizza E, Corrado G, Zanagnolo V, Tomaselli T, Cutillo G, Mancini E, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by robotic radical hysterectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer: a multi‐institution study. Gynecologic Oncology 2014;133(2):180‐5. - PubMed
Westermann 2017 {published data only}
    1. Westermann LB, Crisp CC, Mazloomdoost D, Kleeman SD, Pauls RN. Comparative perioperative pain and recovery in women undergoing vaginal reconstruction versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 2017;72(9):535‐6. - PubMed
Yoo 2015 {published data only}
    1. Yoo HN, Kim TJ, Lee YY, Choi CH, Lee JW, Bae DS, et al. Single‐site robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer: a pilot study. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2015;26(1):62‐7. - PMC - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

Kjolhede 2012 {published data only}
    1. Kjölhede P. RCT comparing robot assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy to abdominal hysterectomy in endometrial cancer [NCT01526655]. Clinicaltrials.gov 2012.
Lauszus 2017 {published data only}
    1. Lauszus FF. Robotic‐assisted hysterectomy: single‐ vs. multi‐port laparoscopic access [NCT03373513]. Clinicaltrials.gov 2017.
Narducci 2010 {published data only}
    1. Narducci F. Perioperative morbidity in gyneco‐oncology according to the procedure: coelioscopy vs robot‐assisted coelioscopy [NCT01247779]. Clinicaltrials.gov 2010.

Additional references

Advincula 2004
    1. Advincula AP, Song A, Burke W, Reynolds RK. Preliminary experience with robot‐assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists 2004;11:511‐8. - PubMed
Bell 2009
    1. Bell MC, Torgerson JL, Kreaden U. The first 100 da Vinci hysterectomies: an analysis of the learning curve for a single surgeon. South Dakota Medical 2009;62(91):93‐5. - PubMed
Cadiere 2001
    1. Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Germay O, Izizaw R, Degueldre M, Vandromme J, et al. Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World Journal of Surgery 2001;25:1467‐77. - PubMed
Cela 2013
    1. Cela V, Freschi L, Simi G, Tana R, Russo N, Artini PG, et al. Fertility and endocrine outcome after robot‐assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM). Gynecological Endocrinology 2013;29(1):79‐82. - PubMed
Cho 2009
    1. Cho JE, Nezhat FR. Robotics and gynecologic oncology: review of the literature. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2009;16(6):669‐81. - PubMed
Coronado 2012
    1. Coronado PJ, Herraiz MA, Magrina JF, Fasero M, Vidart JA. Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic‐assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 2012;165(2):289‐94. - PubMed
da Vinci 2014
    1. Intuitive Surgical Inc. The da Vinci surgery experience. http://www.davincisurgery.com/ (accessed 25 June 2014).
Degueldre 2000
    1. Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PT, Cadiere GB. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertility and Sterility 2000;74:1020‐3. - PubMed
DerSimonian 1986
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta‐analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7:177‐88. - PubMed
Dharia 2008
    1. Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertility and Sterility 2008;90:1175‐9. - PubMed
Diaz 2008
    1. Diaz JP, Sonoda Y, Leitao MM, Zivanovic O, Brown CL, Chi DS, et al. Oncologic outcome of fertility‐sparing radical trachelectomy versus radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical carcinoma. Gynecologic Oncology 2008;111(2):255‐60. - PubMed
Dimitri 2010
    1. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case–control study. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 2010;150:92‐6. - PubMed
Falcone 2000
    1. Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Margossian H, Stevens L. Robotic‐assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a human pilot study. Fertility and Sterility 2000;73(5):1040‐2. - PubMed
Fanning 2008
    1. Fanning J, Fenton B, Purohit M. Robotic radical hysterectomy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;198(6):649.e1‐4. - PubMed
Field 2007
    1. Field JB, Benoit MF, Dinh TA, Diaz‐Arrastia C. Computer‐enhanced robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Surgical Endoscopy 2007;21(2):244‐6. - PubMed
Finger 2014
    1. Finger TN, Nezhat FR. Robotic‐assisted fertility‐sparing surgery for early ovarian cancer. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2014;18(2):308‐13. - PMC - PubMed
Galaal 2018
    1. Galaal K, Donkers H, Bryant A, Lopes AD. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006655.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Geisler 2008
    1. Geisler JP, Orr CJ, Manahan KJ. Robotically assisted total laparoscopic radical trachelectomy for fertility sparing in stage IB1 adenosarcoma of the cervix. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. Part A 2008;18(5):727‐9. - PubMed
GRADE 2008
    1. GRADEpro [Computer program]. Jan Brozek, Andrew Oxman, Holger Schünemann. Version 3.6 for Windows 2008.
Hemal 2008
    1. Hemal AK, Kolla SB, Wadhwa P. Robotic reconstruction for recurrent supratriginal vesicovaginal fistulas. Journal of Urology 2008;180:981‐5. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Holloway 2009a
    1. Holloway RW, Patel SD, Ahmad S. Robotic surgery in gynecology. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery 2009;98(2):96‐109. - PubMed
Holloway 2009b
    1. Holloway RW, Ahmad S, DeNardis SA, Peterson LB, Sultana N, Bigsby GE 4th, et al. Robotic‐assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer: analysis of surgical performance. Gynecologic Oncology 2009;115(3):447‐52. - PubMed
Hyst 2013
    1. The Hysterectomy Association. Hysterectomy statistics—an infographic for the UK. http://www.hysterectomy‐association.org.uk/latest‐news/hysterectomy‐statistics‐an‐infographic‐fo... 2013 (accessed 6 August 2014).
Jemal 2011
    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2011;61(2):69‐90. - PubMed
Jeppson 2014
    1. Jeppson PC, Rahimi S, Gattoc L, Westermann L, Cichowski S, Raker CA, et al. Impact of robotic technology on hysterectomy route and associated implications for resident education. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Conference: 40th Annual SGS Scientific Meeting Scottsdale, AZ United States. Conference Start: 20140323 Conference End: 20140326. Conference Publication:(var.pagings):S4. 2014.
Kilgore 2013
    1. Kilgore JE, Jackson AL, Ko EM, Soper JT, Le L, Gehrig PA, et al. Recurrence‐free and 5‐year survival following robotic‐assisted surgical staging for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecologic Oncology 2013;129(1):49‐53. - PubMed
Kim 2008
    1. Kim YT, Kim SW, Hyung WJ, Lee SJ, Nam EJ, Lee WJ. Robotic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical carcinoma: a pilot study. Gynecologic Oncology 2008;108(2):312‐6. - PubMed
Kucukmetin 2013
    1. Kucukmetin A, Biliatis I, Naik R, Bryant A. Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of early cervical cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006651.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Lawrie 2013
    1. Lawrie TA, Medeiros LRF, Rosa DD, Rosa MI, Edelweiss MI, Stein AT, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005344.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Lenihan 2008
    1. Lenihan JP, Kovanda C, Sheshadri‐Kreaden U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynaecologic surgery?. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2008;15:589‐94. - PubMed
Lowe 2009
    1. Lowe MP, Chamberlain DH, Kamelle SA, Johnson PR, Tillmanns TD. A multi‐institutional experience with robotic‐assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer. Gynecologic Oncology 2009;113(2):191‐4. - PubMed
Madhuri 2012
    1. Madhuri TK, Hamzawala I, Tailor A, Butler‐Manuel S. Robot assisted surgery in gynaecologic oncology—starting a program and initial learning curve from a UK tertiary referral centre: the Guildford perspective. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery: MRCAS 2012;8(4):496‐503. - PubMed
Medeiros 2009
    1. Medeiros LRF, Rosa DD, Bozzetti MC, Fachel JMG, Furness S, Garry R, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004751.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Melamud 2005
    1. Melamud O, Eichel L, Turbow B, Shanberg A. Laparoscopic vesicovaginal fistula repair with robotic reconstruction. Urology 2005;65:163‐6. - PubMed
Mettler 1998
    1. Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Jonat W. One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice‐controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaecological endoscopic surgery. Human Reproduction 1998;3(10):2748‐50. - PubMed
Moy 2010
    1. Moy ML, Byun SY. Role of robotic surgery in urogynecologic surgery. Current Opinion in Urology 2010;20(1):70‐4. - PubMed
Nezhat 2006
    1. Nezhat C, Saberi NS, Shahmohamady B, Nezhat F. Robotic‐assisted laparoscopy in gynecological surgery. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 2006;10:317‐20. - PMC - PubMed
Nezhat 2009
    1. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Hsu S, Watson J, Barnett O, Lemyre M. Robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy—a retrospective matched control study. Fertility and Sterility 2009;91:556‐9. - PubMed
Nieboer 2014
    1. Nieboer TE, Aarts JW. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2014;123(6):1357‐8. - PubMed
O'Neill 2013
    1. O'Neill M, Moran PS, Teljeur C, O'Sullivan OE, O'Reilly BA, Hewitt M, et al. Robot‐assisted hysterectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches: systematic review and meta‐analysis. [Review]. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2013;287(5):907‐18. - PubMed
Parmar 1998
    1. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta‐analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(24):2815‐34. - PubMed
Persson 2008
    1. Persson J, Kannisto P, Bossmar T. Robot‐assisted abdominal laparoscopic radical trachelectomy. Gynecologic Oncology 2008;111(3):564‐7. - PubMed
Plante 2008
    1. Plante M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy: an update. Gynecologic Oncology 2008;111 Suppl 1(2):105‐10. - PubMed
Ramsey 2012
    1. Ramsey C, Pickard R, Robertson C, Close A, Vale L, Armstrong N, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost‐effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme: Executive Summaries 2012;16(41):1‐313. - PMC - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Reynisson 2013
    1. Reynisson P, Persson J. Hospital costs for robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Gynecologic Oncology 2013;130(1):95‐9. - PubMed
Reynolds 2005
    1. Reynolds RK, Burke WM, Advincula AP. Preliminary experience with robot‐assisted laparoscopic staging of gynecologic malignancies. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons/Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2005;9(2):149‐58. - PMC - PubMed
Reynolds 2006
    1. Reynolds RK, Advincula AP. Robot‐assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. American Journal of Surgery 2006;191:555‐60. - PubMed
Rodgers 2007
    1. Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2007;109:1375‐80. - PubMed
Schiavone 2012
    1. Schiavone M, Kuo E, Naumann R, Burke W, Lewin S, Herzog T, et al. The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecologic surgery by hospitals. Gynecologic Oncology Conference: 2012 Annual Meeting on Women's Cancer Austin, TX, United States. Conference Start: 20120324 Conference End: 20120327. Conference Publication:(var.pagings):772. 2012.
Schimpf 2007
    1. Schimpf MO, Morgenstern JH, Tulikangas PK, Wagner JR. Vesicovaginal fistula repair without intentional cystotomy using the laparoscopic robotic approach: a case report. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2007;11:378‐80. - PMC - PubMed
Sener 2006
    1. Sener A, Chew BH, Duvdevani M, Brock GB, Vilos GA, Pautler SE. Combined transurethral and laparoscopic partial cystectomy and robot‐assisted bladder repair for the treatment of bladder endometrioma. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2006;13:245‐8. - PubMed
Shafer 2008
    1. Shafer A, Boggess JF. Robotic‐assisted endometrial cancer staging and radical hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system. Gynecologic Oncology 2008;111 Suppl(2):18‐23. - PubMed
Soliman 2013
    1. Soliman PT, Langley G, Munsell MF, Vaniya HA, Frumovitz M, Ramirez PT. Analgesic and antiemetic requirements after minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer: a comparison between laparoscopy and robotic surgery. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2013;20(4):1355‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Sundaram 2006
    1. Sundaram BM, Kalidasan G, Hemal AK. Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula: case series of five patients. Urology 2006;67:970‐3. - PubMed
Teljeur 2014
    1. Teljeur C, O'Neill M, Moran P, Harrington P, Flattery M, Murphy L, et al. Economic evaluation of robot‐assisted hysterectomy: a cost‐minimisation analysis. BJOG 2014 May 9; Vol. Epub ahead of print. - PubMed
Vergote 2008
    1. Vergote I, Pouseele B, Gorp T, Vanacker B, Leunen K, Cadron I, et al. Robotic retroperitoneal lower para‐aortic lymphadenectomy in cervical carcinoma: first report on the technique used in 5 patients. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2008;87(7):783‐7. - PubMed
Verheijen 2012
    1. Verheijen R, Zweemer R. Robotic surgery for gynaecologic cancer: an overview. Current Oncology Reports 2012;14(6):544‐9. - PubMed
Yim 2013
    1. Yim GW, Kim SW, Nam EJ, Kim S, Kim YT. Learning curve analysis of robot‐assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: initial experience at a single institution. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2013;24(4):303‐12. - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Liu 2012
    1. Liu H, Lu D, Wang L, Shi G, Song H, Clarke J. Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008978.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Lu 2012
    1. Lu D, Liu Z, Shi G, Liu D, Zhou X. Robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008640.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources