Vaginectomy has been shown to be effective for select patients with vaginal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) and is favored by gynecologists, while there are few reports on the robotic-assisted laparoscopic vaginectomy (RALV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and treatment outcomes between RALV and the conventional laparoscopic vaginectomy (CLV) for patients with vaginal HSIL.
This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 109 patients with vaginal HSIL who underwent either RALV (RALV group) or CLV (CLV group) from December 2013 to May 2022. The operative data, homogeneous HPV infection regression rate and vaginal HSIL regression rate were compared between the two groups. Student\'s t-test, the Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson χ2 test or the Fisher exact test, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional-hazards models were used for data analysis.
There were 32 patients in the RALV group and 77 patients in the CLV group. Compared with the CLV group, patients in the RALV group demonstrated less estimated blood loss (41.6 ± 40.3 mL vs. 68.1 ± 56.4 mL, P = 0.017), lower intraoperative complications rate (6.3% vs. 24.7%, P = 0.026), and shorter flatus passing time (2.0 (1.0-2.0) vs. 2.0 (2.0-2.0), P < 0.001), postoperative catheterization time (2.0 (2.0-3.0) vs. 4.0 (2.0-6.0), P = 0.001) and postoperative hospitalization time (4.0 (4.0-5.0) vs. 5.0 (4.0-6.0), P = 0.020). In addition, the treatment outcomes showed that both RALV group and CLV group had high homogeneous HPV infection regression rate (90.0% vs. 92.0%, P > 0.999) and vaginal HSIL regression rate (96.7% vs. 94.7%, P = 0.805) after vaginectomy. However, the RALV group had significantly higher hospital costs than that in the CLV group (53035.1 ± 9539.0 yuan vs. 32706.8 ± 6659.2 yuan, P < 0.001).
Both RALV and CLV can achieve satisfactory treatment outcomes, while RALV has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, fewer intraoperative complications rate and faster postoperative recovery. Robotic-assisted surgery has the potential to become a better choice for vaginectomy in patients with vaginal HSIL without regard to the burden of hospital costs.

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.