Robotic surgery vs laparoscopic surgery in patients with diagnosis of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Stefano Restaino, Liliana Mereu, Angelo Finelli, Finelli A, Maria Roberta Spina, Spina MR, Giulia Marini, Marini G, Ursula Catena, Luigi Carlo Turco, Turco LC, Rossana Moroni, Milani M, Michela Milani, Vito Cela, Cela V, Giovanni Scambia, Fanfani F, Francesco Fanfani
Journal of robotic surgery · 2020 · vol. 14(5) , pp. 687–694 · doi:10.1007/s11701-020-01061-y · PMID:32146573 · W3009450136
review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 43 in-corpus citations
Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This meta-analysis of five studies found robotic surgery to be safe and feasible for endometriosis treatment, with no significant differences in blood loss, complications, or hospital stay compared to laparoscopic surgery, though operating time was longer.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-10 · read from full text ⓘ

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LPS) for patients diagnosed with endometriosis, using searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL from January 1995 to March 2019. Five comparative studies totaling 1527 patients were included, and pooled outcomes showed no significant differences between RAS and LPS in blood loss, complication rates, or hospital stay. The meta-analysis found that RAS had a higher weighted mean operating time than LPS. The paper’s stated limitation is that only five comparative studies met inclusion criteria, and among them operating time differed while other perioperative outcomes did not. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it directly meta-analyzes safety and efficacy outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery specifically in endometriosis patients.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Endometriosis is one of the most common medical conditions affecting the women. The study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (LPS) in the treatment of endometriosis. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and CINAHL databases were searched from January 1995 to March 2019. According to meta-analysis criteria, five comparative studies were selected. A total of 1527 patients were identified. In the meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in blood loss, complication, and hospital stay between RAS and LPS surgeries in the treatment of patients with endometriosis. However, RAS surgery required a higher weighted mean operating time than LPS surgery, 0.54 (95% confidence interval; 0.37 to 0.70; p < 0.00001) min. This meta-analysis confirmed that the robotic surgery is safe and feasible in patients affected by endometriosis. We could suggest that RAS is a valid option and might be considered an alternative to LPS especially in advanced cases.
Full text 6,971 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Endometriosis is one of the most common medical conditions affecting the women. The study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (LPS) in the treatment of endometriosis. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and CINAHL databases were searched from January 1995 to March 2019. According to meta-analysis criteria, five comparative studies were selected. A total of 1527 patients were identified. In the meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in blood loss, complication, and hospital stay between RAS and LPS surgeries in the treatment of patients with endometriosis. However, RAS surgery required a higher weighted mean operating time than LPS surgery, 0.54 (95% confidence interval; 0.37 to 0.70; p < 0.00001) min. This meta-analysis confirmed that the robotic surgery is safe and feasible in patients affected by endometriosis. We could suggest that RAS is a valid option and might be considered an alternative to LPS especially in advanced cases. Similar content being viewed by others

References

Giudice LC (2010) Clinical practice. Endometriosis. N Engl J Med 362:2389–2398 (2010) Practice bulletin no. 114: management of endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol 116(1):223–236. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e8b073 Kho RM, Andres MP, Borrelli GM et al (2018) Surgical treatment of different types of endometriosis: comparison of major society guidelines and preferred clinical algorithms. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 51:102–110 Dunselman GA, Vermeulen N, Becker C et al (2014) ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 29:400–412 Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2012) Endometriosis and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 98:591–598 Leyland N, Casper R, Laberge P et al (2010) Endometriosis: diagnosis and management. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 32:S1–S3 de Paula Andres M, Borrelli GM, Kho RM et al (2017) The current management of deep endometriosis: a systematic review. Minerva Ginecol 69:587–596 Nisolle M, Donnez J (1997) Peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometriosis, and adenomyotic nodules of the rectovaginal septum are three different entities. Fertil Steril 68:585–596 Cornillie FJ, Oosterlynck D, Lauweryns JM et al (1990) Deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis: histology and clinical significance. Fertil Steril 53:978–983 Angioni S, Peiretti M, Zirone M et al (2006) Laparoscopic excision of posterior vaginal fornix in the treatment of patients with deep endometriosis without rectum involvement: surgical treatment and long-term follow-up. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 21:1629–1634 Berlanda N, Frattaruolo MP, Aimi G et al (2017) Money for nothing. The role of robotic-assisted laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Reprod Biomed Online 35(4):435–444 Luu TH, Uy-Kroh MJ (2017) New developments in surgery for endometriosis and pelvic pain. Clin Obstet Gynecol 60:245–251 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269 Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP et al (2016) PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ 352:i157 Dubeshter B, Angel C, Toy E et al (2013) Current role of robotic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg 29(4):174–178 Nezhat C, Lewis M, Kotikela S et al (2010) Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 94(7):2758–2760 Nezhat FR, Sirota I (2014) Perioperative outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy surgery for advanced-stage endometriosis. JSLS. 18(4):e2014.00094 Nezhat CR, Stevens A, Balassiano E et al (2015) Robotic-assisted laparoscopy vs conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(1):40–44 Soto E, Luu TH, Liu X et al (2017) Laparoscopy vs robotic surgery for endometriosis (LAROSE):a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril 107(4):996–1002.e3 Magrina JF, Espada M, Kho RM et al (2015) Surgical excision of advanced endometriosis: perioperative outcomes and impacting factors. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(6):944–950 Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu D et al (2019) Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD011422 Ercoli A, Bassi E, Ferrari S et al (2017) Robotic-assisted conservative excision of retrocervical-rectal deep infiltrating endometriosis: a case series. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 24(5):863–868 Chen Y, Wang H, Wang S et al (2019) Efficacy of ten interventions for endometriosis: a network meta-analysis. J Cell Biochem 120(8):13076–13084 Nagendran M, Gurusamy KS, Aggarwal R et al (2013) Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 27(8):CD006575 Luu TH, Uy-Kroh MJ (2017) New developments in surgery for endometriosis and pelvic pain. Clin Obstet Gynecol 60(2):245–251 Fanfani F, Restaino S, Ercoli A et al (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: which should we use? Minerva Ginecol 68(4):423–430 Siesto G, Ieda N, Rosati R et al (2014) Robotic surgery for deep endometriosis: a paradigm shift. Int J Med Robot. 10(2):140–146 Vercellini P (1997) Endometriosis: what a pain it is. Semin Reprod Endocrinol. 15(3):251–261 Cassini D, Cerullo G, Miccini M et al (2014) Robotic hybrid technique in rectal surgery for deep pelvic endometriosis. Surg. Innov. 21:52–58 Turchetti G, Pierotti F, Palla I et al (2017) Comparative health technology assessment of robotic assisted, direct manual laparoscopic and open surgery: a prospective study. Surg Endosc 31(2):543–551 Duffy JM, Arambage K, Correa FJ et al (2014) Laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 4:CD011031 Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of interest Author Stefano Restaino, Author Liliana Mereu, Author Angelo Finelli, Author Maria Roberta Spina, Author Giulia Marini, Author Ursula Catena, Author Luigi Carlo Turco, Author Rossana Moroni, Author Michela Milani, Author Vito Cela, Author Giovanni Scambia and Author Francesco Fanfani declare that they have no conflict of interest. Human and animal rights This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors. Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Restaino, S., Mereu, L., Finelli, A. et al. Robotic surgery vs laparoscopic surgery in patients with diagnosis of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robotic Surg 14, 687–694 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01061-y Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01061-y

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Laparoscopy Operative Time Robotic Surgical Procedures Blood Loss, Surgical Blood Loss, Surgical Endometriosis Feasibility Studies Female Humans Laparoscopy Length of Stay Postoperative Complications Postoperative Complications Robotic Surgical Procedures Safety Treatment Outcome

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (32)

Cited by (46)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-03T06:10:56.557307+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:22:11.167363+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-13T06:42:57.164913+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK