Robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RALS) has gained widespread acceptance in the field of gynecological oncology. However, whether the prognosis of endometrial cancer after RALS is superior to conventional laparoscopy (CLS) and laparotomy (LT) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term survival outcomes of RALS with CLS and LT for endometrial cancer.
A systematic literature search was conducted on electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE and Web of Science) until May 24, 2022, followed by a manual search. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, publications investigating long-term survival outcomes after RALS vs CLS or LT in endometrial cancer patients were collected. The primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Fixed effects models or random effects models were employed to calculate the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as appropriate. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed.
RALS and CLS had no difference in OS (HR = 0.962, 95% CI: 0.922-1.004), RFS (HR = 1.096, 95% CI: 0.947-1.296), and DSS (HR = 1.489, 95% CI: 0.713-3.107) for endometrial cancer; however, RALS was significantly associated with favorable OS (HR = 0.682, 95% CI: 0.576-0.807), RFS (HR = 0.793, 95% CI: 0.653-0.964), and DSS (HR = 0.441, 95% CI: 0.298-0.652) when compared with LT. In the subgroup analysis of effect measures and follow-up length, RALS showed comparable or superior RFS/OS to CLS and LT. In early-stage endometrial cancer patients, RALS had similar OS but worse RFS than CLS.
RALS is safe in the management of endometrial cancer, with long-term oncological outcomes equivalent to CLS and superior to LT.

UNASSIGNED: Robotic-assisted surgery is one of the novel minimally invasive surgical techniques for the treatment of gynecological malignancies. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopy for para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) in patients with gynecological malignancies.
UNASSIGNED: An electronic search in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar databases was performed for articles, published up to 01st November 2021. Outcomes including operating time (OT), total blood loss (TBL), length of stay (LOS), and complication rate (CR) in robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopy were investigated.
UNASSIGNED: A total of nine studies (7 non-RCTs and 2 RCTs) involving 914 participants were included. Of them, 332 patients underwent robotic laparoscopy (robotic group) and 582-conventional laparoscopy (conventional laparoscopy group). A significant decrease in TBL (MD = -149.1; 95% CI: -218.4 to -79.91) [ml] was observed in the robotic group as compared to the conventional laparoscopy group. However, no significant difference was noted for OT, CR, and LOS in the overall findings. Further subgroup analysis showed that the robotic group had a lower OT in mixed histological populations and studies reporting on the extraperitoneal approach. The lower chance of TBL was observed in mixed histological populations and studies involving extraperitoneal approach, Caucasian population, and non-RCTs design.
UNASSIGNED: Robotic laparoscopy has a significant advantage over the conventional laparoscopy approach for PAL in gynecological malignancies. Further prospective observational studies embedded with a large sample size are needed to validate our findings.

Aortic lymph node metastases are a relative common finding in locally advanced cervical cancer. Minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach to perform para-aortic lymph nodal staging to reduce complications, hospital stay, and the time to primary treatment. This meta-analysis (CRD42022335095) aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of the two most advanced approaches for the aortic staging procedure: conventional laparoscopy (CL) versus robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL). The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. The search string included the following keywords: \"Laparoscopy\" (MeSH Unique ID: D010535), \"Robotic Surgical Procedures\" (MeSH Unique ID: D065287), \"Lymph Node Excision\" (MeSH Unique ID: D008197) and \"Aorta\" (MeSH Unique ID: D001011), and \"Uterine Cervical Neoplasms\" (MeSH Unique ID: D002583). A total of 1324 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 1200 patients were included in the CL group and 124 patients in the RAL group. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in CL compared with RAL (p = 0.02), whereas hospital stay was longer in RAL compared with CL (p = 0.02). We did not find significant difference for all the other parameters, including operative time, intra- and postoperative complication rate, and number of lymph nodes excised. Based on our data analysis, both CL and RAL are valid options for para-aortic staging lymphadenectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic Heller myotomy has been proposed as an alternative minimally invasive approach to traditional laparoscopy for the treatment of achalasia. This systematic review aims to compare the safety and post-operative outcomes of the two procedures.
METHODS: Systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE through Ovid, Scopus and Cochrane to identify clinical trials and retrospective analyses. Outcome measures used for meta-analysis included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, 30-day readmission, intraoperative oesophageal perforation, conversion, mortality, morbidity, symptom relief beyond 1 year, re-intervention for recurrent symptoms and gastroesophageal reflux during follow-up rates.
RESULTS: Seven studies were selected with a total of 3214 patients. The only factor to be statistically different is intraoperative oesophageal perforation rate, which is lower in robotic-assisted Heller myotomy compared to laparoscopic (odds ratio = 0.1139; 95% confidence interval [0.0334, 0.3887]; p = 0.0005).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest a robotic approach is associated with improved patient safety.

Robotic surgery is a conceptual fusion of the conventional open surgery and the minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery. We reviewed the current role of robotic-assisted laparoscopy in the field of reproductive surgery by a literature search in PubMed database. We analyzed the reported advantages and limitations of the use of robotics in reproductive surgeries like myomectomy, tubal reanastomosis, endometriosis, ovarian tissue cryopreservation, and ovarian transposition. Overall, robotic assistance in reproductive surgery resulted in decreased blood loss, less post-operative pain, shorter hospital stay, and faster convalescence, whereas reproductive outcomes were similar to open/laparoscopic approaches. The main drawbacks of robotic surgery were higher cost and longer operating times. It is as safe and effective as the conventional laparoscopy and represents a reasonable alternate to abdominal approach. Procedures that are technically challenging with the conventional laparoscopy can be performed with robotic assistance. It has advantages of improved visualization and Endowrist™ movements allowing precise suturing. This helps to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy, especially in complicated procedures, and may shorten the steep learning curve in minimal invasive surgery. Randomized controlled trials looking at both short- and long-term outcomes are warranted to strengthen the role of robotic surgery in the field of reproductive surgery.