Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer : a systematic review and meta-analysis
A partir d'une revue systématique de la littérature publiée jusqu'en 2016 (19 études incluant au total 3 056 patients), cette méta-analyse compare, du point de vue de données péri-opératoires (durée de l'opération et de l'hospitalisation, perte de sang, complications postopératoires, ...), l'intérêt d'un traitement chirurgical assisté par robot et une chirurgie laparoscopique conventionnelle chez les patientes atteintes d'un cancer de l'endomètre
Purpose : To compare perioperative outcomes between robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of endometrial cancer by conducting a meta-analysis. Methods : We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE up to January 8, 2016. Studies clearly documenting a comparison between RAS and CLS for patients with endometrial cancer were included. The perioperative outcomes of interest included intraoperative visceral injuries, postoperative complications, operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, total lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were pooled with either a fixed-effects or a random-effects model. Results : A total of 19 studies were included in the analysis, involving 3056 patients. The pooled analysis showed that RAS was associated with lower EBL (WMD −77.65; 95 % confidence interval [CI] −105.58 to −49.72), lower conversion rate (OR 0.29; 95 % CI 0.18–0.46), and shorter hospital stay (WMD −0.48; 95 % CI −0.70 to −0.26) compared to CLS. The incidence of intraoperative visceral injuries, operation time, transfusion rate, and TLNH showed no significant differences between RAS and CLS. Conclusions : RAS is a feasible and effective surgical approach that may be superior to CLS for the treatment of endometrial cancer, with lower EBL and lower conversion rate. Further prospective randomized trials are required to validate our findings.