Robot-assisted laparoscopy does not have demonstrable advantages over conventional laparoscopy in endometriosis surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sándor Valent, Ádám Csirzó, Csirzó Á, Dénes Péter Kovács, Kovács DP, Szabó A, Anett Szabó, Fehérvári P, Péter Fehérvári, Jankó Á, Árpád Jankó, Hegyi P, Péter Hegyi, Péter Nyírády, Nyirády P, Sipos Z, Zoltán Sipos, Levente Sára, Sára L, Nándor Ács, Acs N, Szabó I, István Szabó
In: Authorea, Inc. · 2023 · doi:10.22541/au.168351487.71384228/v1 · W4375843260
Systematic review / meta-analysis preprint OA: gold CC0
📄 Open PDF View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

Robot-assisted laparoscopy demonstrated no significant perioperative advantages over conventional laparoscopy for endometriosis surgery, with longer operative and operating room times.

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

Abstract

Background: Endometriosis is a chronic condition affecting 6-10% of women of reproductive age, with endometriosis-related pain and infertility being the leading symptoms. Currently, the gold standard treatment approach to surgery is conventional laparoscopy (CL); however, the increasing availability of robot-assisted surgery is projected as a competitor of CL. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) and CL in endometriosis surgery. Objectives: We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of these two procedures. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in three medical databases. Studies investigating different perioperative outcomes of endometriosis-related surgeries were included. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Our search yielded 2,014 records, of which 13 were eligible for data extraction. No significant differences were detected between the CL and RAL groups in terms of intraoperative complications (OR=1.07, CI:0.43-2.63), postoperative complications (OR=1.3, CI:0.73-2.32), number of conversions to open surgery (OR=1.34, CI:0.76-2.37), length of hospital stays (MD=0.12, CI:0.33-0.57), blood loss (MD=16.73, CI:4.18-37.63) or number of rehospitalizations (OR= 0.95, CI:0.13-6.75). In terms of operative times (MD=28.09 minutes, CI:11.59-44.59) and operating room times (MD=51.39 minutes, CI:15.07-87.72;), the RAL technique remained inferior. Conclusions: RAL does not have statistically demonstrable advantages over CL in terms of perioperative outcomes for endometriosis-related surgery.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosisinfertility

Citation neighborhood (2-hop)

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. Outer rings show 2-hop neighbours — papers reached through the immediate citers/citees. [ collapse to 1-hop ]

References (40)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-14T06:22:33.750792+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK