Robotic Surgery and Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis Treatment: The State of Art

Objective: Surgical treatment of endometriosis, when indicated, has demonstrated to be effective in reducing painful symptoms and improve quality of life of patients affected with endometriosis. The minimally invasive approach via laparoscopy is the preferred method when compared with laparotomy but in the last two decades another minimally invasive approach has become available, the robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery. Robotic technology is widely used in different surgical branches, such as general surgery and urology. Moreover, the use of robotic surgery is already accepted for different gynecological procedures either for benign and for oncological diseases. The advantages of robotic surgery such as improve dexterity of movements, avoided tremor, increased magnification of 3- dimensional vision seem strategic in the context of a complex surgery as is deep endometriosis eradication. However, to date there is no unanimous consensus on whether robotically assisted procedures are a valid and safe alternative to laparoscopy in the treatment of endometriosis. Mechanism: In this narrative review we analyze the available literature assessesing the robotic treatment of all types of endometriosis and specifically deep infiltrating endometriosis, compared to the outcomes of conventional laparoscopy. Findings in Brief : Indeed, the evidence of safety and effectiveness of robotically assisted laparoscopy in endometriosis treatment is strong and almost unanimous. There is no clear superiority of one approach to the other but robotic-related advantages and future prospective are promising to be able to improve operative outcomes, reduce surgeon’s fatigue and provide a technology easy to implement with a fast learning curve. Conclusions: Robotic technology applied to laparoscopy in the treatment of endometriosis could be seen as an effective and safe alternative to the conventional laparoscopic treatment.

robotic surgery; deep endometriosis; laparoscopy 1. Introduction Endometriosis is a very common gynecological dis- ease, which affects nearly 10% of the female population in reproductive age [ 1–3], accounting for 38% of women with infertility and 71–87% of women with chronic pelvic pain [ 4]. Moreover, it is estimated that about 20% of pa- tients with endometriosis are affected by deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE), which is correlated with worse symp- toms and quality of life [ 5]. Treatment options are multiple and different but even more variable is the response of the patients to each treat- ment, being it dependent to age, body characteristics, fer- tility status, patient compliance and patient’s desires. Two main approaches have been described for endometriosis treatment, not excluding one another: medical hormonal therapy and surgery. It is widely accepted that endometrio- sis should be considered as a chronic disease that requires a life-long management plan with the goal of maximizing the use of medical treatment and avoiding repeated surgical procedures [ 6]. Nevertheless, surgical excision of the en- dometriotic lesions can significantly reduce painful symp- toms and improve the quality of life of patients [ 7–10]. Moreover, some clinical conditions represent a mandatory indication for surgery. These comprehend those conditions in which an organ’s function is at risk, such as the presence of bowel occlusion or subocclusion due to a deep nodule, a reduced kidney function or hydronephrosis caused by ureteral stenosis. In addition, surgery should be proposed to all symptomatic patients who do not respond or have contraindication to the use of medical therapy. Since the first reports of application of laparoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis, the min- imally invasive approach has demonstrated to be the pre- ferred method when compared with laparotomy [ 10,11]. In the last two decades, the robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS), has become available in different special- ties. This approach has gradually become a frequent choice, even in gynecology, demonstrating good results in terms of reducing trauma and shortening the length of hospital stay [ 12]. Specific advantages of RALS try to overcome specific limits of conventional laparoscopy, such as the im- proved dexterity and coordination RALS provides thanks to the seven degrees of freedom of the instruments, the filter- ing of physiologic tremor, the increased magnification with its 10X view/three-dimensional vision and, not least, the de- crease of surgeon’s fatigue [ 13–16]. In the context of DIE surgery, these advantages may facilitate the correct dissec- tion of planes and complete eradication of endometriosis, thus improving the success of the procedures [ 17,18]. On the other hand, to date there is no large consen- sus on the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery for endometriosis although many experiences have been published. This is a narrative review of the available literature on the implementation of robotic technology in the surgical treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis, summarizing the evidence and shedding light on the “blind spots”, on the aspects that are still unclear or not fully investigated. 2. Materials and Methods A comprehensive literature review was performed us- ing electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase). All languages studies regarding robotically-assisted la- paroscopy and endometriosis have been evaluated along with their references from April 2005, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted the use of robotic technology to perform laparoscopic gynecological proce- dures, to March 2022. The following key words were used in the search: “robotic surgery”, “endometriosis”, “gyne- cology”. Reviews, case reports and case series with less than 10 patients were excluded, obtaining 26 articles for the qualitative synthesis (Table 1,Ref. [ 19–31] ; Table 2, Ref. [17,32–43]). PRISMA guidelines were followed during the selection process [44,45] (Fig. 1). 3. Feasibility and Safety Feasibility and safety of a new surgical technique are the first aspects to take into account while assessing its validity. Different articles advocate to this purpose, with either retrospectively and prospectively designed studies. The Laparoscopy vs. Robotic Surgery for Endometriosis (LAROSE) trial [ 19] is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic vs robotic surgery for endometriosis at all stages. The study population was recruited between three centers in USA and surgeries were performed by experienced surgeons in each center. Women were randomly assigned to the laparoscopic or to the RALS arm. All patients were affected by endometriosis but those cases with need for bowel resection and/or ureteral reanas- tomosis were excluded from the study. RALS and conven- Fig. 1. PRISMA flow chart for studies selection. tional laparoscopic procedures showed no difference as for operative time, with mean operative time being 106.6 ± 48.4 minutes and 101.6 ± 63.2 minutes respectively. Dif- ferences were not found neither in terms of blood loss and operative and postoperative complication when adjusted for the number and type of procedures performed, nor in terms of rate of histologic confirmation of endometriosis. A large retrospective single center cohort study has been published by Huang et al. [ 32] demonstrating the fea- sibility of robotic single-site surgery for treatment of en- dometriosis at all stages. Data from 334 surgeries were ana- lyzed along with perioperative outcomes. At least one addi- tional port was placed in 41 (12%) patients, in cases of more complex lesions that demanded greater precision of instru- ments and a wider surgical field. The median estimated blood loss was very low (25–50 mL) and lower than that of traditional RALS and conventional laparoscopy [ 19,33], suggesting that robotic single site laparoscopic surgery does not increase the amount of blood loss. As for the complica- tion rate, 20 (6%) postoperative complications occurred of which only 2 (0.6%) of grade III by the Clavien-Dindo clas- sification [46,47]; the other 4 complications were grade I or II. This rate is similar to that reported for traditional RALS and conventional laparoscopy [19,33,47–50]. No umbilical hernia due to large umbilical incision was reported in this cohort. Furthermore, other studies adressed the effectiveness of RALS treatment specifically in patients with severe en- dometriosis, defined as stage III or IV of the American So- ciety for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) [ 51]. Two retro- 2 Table 1. Studies with comparison of robotically-assisted laparoscopic surgeries and conventional laparoscopic surgeries for endometriosis. Authors Y ear of pub- lication

n. Study design n° of patients Type of endometriosis Complications Folow-up Dulemba JF et al. 2013 [27] Retrospective cohort study 180 RALS, 100 LPS all RALS 1.1% (1 intraoperative + 1 C-D grade I) vs LPS 0% 2 weeks Nezhat FR et al. 2014 [20] Retrospective cohort study 32 RALS, 86 LPS ASRM stage III–IV RALS: 10% C-D grade II (3), 6.2% C-D grade 3b (2) vs LPS: 5.8% C-D grade II (5), 1.2% C-D grade 3b (1) 1 month Nezhat CR et al. 2015 [21] Retrospective cohort study 147 RALS, 273 LPS ASRM stage III–IV RALS: 0% vs LPS: 0% (only C-D grade III and IV considered) N/A Le Carpentier M et al. 2016 [26] Retrospective cohort study 15 RALS, 22 LPS bladder endometriosis RALS: 7% conversion (1), 27% C-D grade II (4), 33% C-D grade III (5) vs LPS: 0% conversion, 18.2% C-D grade II (4), 14% C-D grade III (3) 1, 3, 6, 12 months Soto E et al. 2017 [19] Randomized controlled trial 35 RALS, 38 LPS all RALS: 28.5% C-D grade II (10) vs LPS: 36.8% C- D grade II (14) 6 weeks, 6 months Mosbrucker C et al. 2017 [28] Randomized controlled trial 50 RALS, 48 LPS all N/A N/A Moon H et al. 2018 [29] Retrospective cohort study 68 RALS, 52 LPS all RALS: 0% vs LPS: 0% 6 months Vizzielli G et al. 2020 [22] Retrospective multicenter co- hort study 20 RALS, 27 LPS ASRM stadio III–IV RALS: 5% C-D grade II (1), 5% C-D grade IIIb (1) vs LPS: 7.4% C-D grade II (2) e 3.7% C-D grade IIIb (1) N/A Le Gac M et al. 2020 [23] Prospective cohort study 23 RALS, 25 LPS colorectal endometrio- sis RALS: 9% C-D grade III (2), 4% C-D grade IV (1) vs 0% C-D grade III (0), 16% C-D grade IV (4) N/A Lee HJ et al. 2020 [30] Retrospective cohort study 40 RALS, 54 LPS ovarian endometriosis N/A 3, 6 months Gupta N et al. 2020 [31] Retrospective cohort study 36 RALS, 49 SS- RALS, 44 LPS all RALS: 8.3% intraoperative (3), 0% postoperative vs SSRALS 4% intraoperative (2), 4% postopera- tive (2) vs LPS 2.3% intraoperative (1), 2.3% post- operative (1) N/A Di Maida F et al. 2020 [25] Retrospective cohort study 46 RALS, 28 LPS urinary tract en- dometriosis RALS: 4.3% C-D grade II (2), 2.1% C-D grade III (1) vs LPS: 14.2% C-D grade II (4), 3.5% C- D grade III (1) 30 months Raimondo D et al. 2021 [24] Prospective multicenter co- hort study 22 RALS, 22 LPS colorectal endometrio- sis RALS, 4.5% C-D grade I (1), 4.5% C-D grade II (1), 9% C-D grade III (2) vs LPS 4.5% C-D grade I (1) 12 months RALS, robotically-assisted laparoscopic surgery; LPS, laparoscopy; SSRALS, single-site robotically-assisted laparoscopic surgery; ASRM, American Society for Reproductive Medicine; C-D, Clavien-Dindo classification; N/A, not applicable. 3 Table 2. Studies with assessment of robotically-assisted laparoscopic surgeries for endometriosis without comparison to conventional laparoscopy. Authors Y ear of pub- lication

n. Study design n° of patients Type of endometriosis Complications Folow-up Magrina JF et al. 2015 [33] Retrospective cohort study 493 ASRM stage III–IV 0.6% conversions (3), 0.4% intraoperative (2), 2.8% C-D grade II (14), 1% C-D grade IIIb (5) 42 days Abo C et al. 2017 [36] Prospective cohort study 35 DIE 3% C-D grade IIIb (1) 24 ± 8 months Ercoli A et al. 2017 [37] Prospective cohort study 31 colorectal endometriosis 3% C-D grade IIIb (1), 6% C-D grade I (2) 3, 6, 12 months Tamura VG M et al. 2018 [34] Retrospective cohort study 274 all + other gynecological diseases 1.1% conversions (3), 0.8% C-D grade III (2) N/A Riley K et al. 2018 [40] Randomized controlled trial 73 superficial endometriosis N/A 6 , 12 months Giannini A et al. 2018 [17] Retrospective single center case series 31 urinary tract endometrio- sis 16.2 C-D grade III (5) 3, 6 months Poujois J et al. 2019 [35] Retrospective single-center case series 20 all 5% conversions (1), 5% C-D grade I (1), 5% C-D grade IIIa (1) N/A Graham A et al. 2019 [38] Retrospective single-center case series 15 colorectal endometriosis 26.6% C-D grade III (4) 1, 3 months Diez SP et al. 2019 [41] Experimental 19 not specified N/A N/A Zhang Y et al. 2021 [42] Retrospective case series 33 all 3% conversions (1), 12.2% C-D grade II (4) 3 weeks Philip CA et al. 2021 [39] Retrospective multicenter co- hort study 232 urinary tract endometrio- sis 18% C-D grade I (44), 7% C-D grade III (16), 0.4% C-D grade IV (1) 3 months Huang Y et al. 2021 [32] Retrospective cohort study 334 all 5% C-D grade III (18), 1% C-D grade IV (2) N/A Delgado SI et al. 2021 [43] Restrospective cohort study 158 all N/A 3 weeks ASRM, American Society for Reproductive Medicine; DIE, Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis; C-D, Clavien-Dindo classification; N/A, not applicable. 4 spective cohort studies compared RALS and conventional laparoscopy in the treatment of advanced endometriosis. Nezhat FR. et al. [ 20] compared operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications and hospi- tal stay in a cohort of 32 patients treated with RALS and 86 patients treated by conventional laparoscopy. They found no differences in terms of blood loss, complications and hospital stay; RALS showed longer operative time than la- paroscopy but after stratification for patient’s BMI, the dif- ference in operative time remained significant for obese pa- tients only with RALS procedures being longer than con- ventional laparoscopy. In this study patients were not ran- domly assigned to one or other technique but the choice was made according to surgeon’s preference. Therefore, the apparent longer operative time for RALS procedures in obese patients could be the result of a selection bias and points out the need for cohort randomization in this kind of comparison. Nezhat CR. et al . [ 21] considered the same perioperative outcomes in a cohort of 147 patients under- going RALS and 273 patients undergoing conventional la- paroscopy for advanced endometriosis; the patients were assigned to RALS or laparoscopy based on the availability of the operating room only, so that no surgeon’s choice bias was present. There were no significant differences in blood loss or complication rate between the two groups but RALS operative time was significantly longer (mean 196 minutes) than laparoscopy group (mean 135 minutes); also, hospi- tal stay was longer for RALS patients than laparoscopy pa- tients. Studies on surgical treatment of other gynecolog- ical diseases evidence this discrepancy in operative time between robotic-assisted surgeries and laparoscopy with longer operative time using RALS [ 52–54] but this is not consistent with all the literature. Magrina et al . [ 33] de- scribe the surgical treatment of endometriosis stage III and IV in 493 patient, 331 undergoing RALS and 162 under- going conventional laparoscopy. After multivariate analy- sis considering age, blood loss and number of procedures performed, operative time was shorter for RALS than la- paroscopy. Moreover, the authors concluded that the type of procedure, RALS or laparoscopy, do not influence hos- pital stay or complication rate. A longer operative time is the only significant variable influencing a higher compli- cation rate and longer hospital stay. Thus, implying that the implementation of time-saving strategies, such as the standardization of surgical steps in endometriosis surgery, either laparoscopic and robotic, would be able to reduce the complication rate and improve outcomes. Complication rates have been demonstrated to be comparable for both techniques, either when assessing all types of endometriosis and when evaluating severe en- dometriosis (ASRM stage III–IV) [ 19,22]. Accounting for feasibility of the procedure, all se- lected studies describe RALS for endometriosis treatment as feasible and effective. Only one study [21] highlights the limits of RALS while approaching cases of extrapelvic en- dometriosis such as diaphragmatic endometriosis, because of the need for different trocar positioning and difficult robotic branches mobilization. Overall, available literature is not unanimous regarding operative time in RALS proce- dures compared to conventional laparoscopy and it seems reasonable that the differences between the experiences are due to the wide variety of surgical expertise and procedures implemented which are hardly comparable between studies. 4. Learning Curve The majority of the studies included in this review re- ports the results of surgical procedures implemented by ex- perienced surgeons in the field of RALS. This aspect en- sures the possibility to compare results between centers but it does not provide the fundamental information regarding the learning curve of the new technique. Indeed, feasibility and safety are the first aspect to consider, but the prospect of an effective surgical approach which is also easy and fast to learn is even more alluring. On one hand, the learning period for laparoscopic complex procedures such as radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection is long, account- ing for at least 40 cases needed to achieve a turning point in the operative duration and complication rates [ 55]. On the other hand, RALS in gynecology has been reported to be characterized with a shorter learning curve, with 12 to 18 procedures needed to gain equivalent expertise [ 56]. Gomes et al . [ 34] compared perioperative outcomes of patients operated by experienced and beginner robotic surgeons assisted by an experienced proctor. In this retro- spective study, 274 different kind of gynecological robotic surgeries were analyzed, being endometriosis treatment the most frequent (57%). No difference in terms of need for transfusion, complications rates and conversion rates was observed between the two groups, pointing out the safety of introduction of RALS procedures in a less experienced team with the supervision of a proctor. The learning curve of RALS for deep endometriosis treatment is addressed by a single-center retrospective study from Poujois et al . [ 35]. In this study, 20 patients under- went a RALS procedure for eradication of endometriosis performed by gynecologysts who were trained for laparo- scopic complex gynecological procedures but not for DIE surgery nor for robotic-assisted procedures. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated and compared to the available literature on RALS for DIE. According to operative time, blood loss, performed procedures, complications and hospi- tal stay, no significant differences were identified, meaning that the learning phase for RALS in the study setting had no impact on perioperative outcomes. This could imply that it is easier to approach to RALS when having already some laparoscopic experience. However, it does not demonstrate that RALS for the treatment of DIE is actually the easier route for the surgeon. In order to effectively compare the learning curve of the two surgical approaches in the treatment of DIE, ran- 5 domized studies comparing the two techniques performed by surgical teams with little experience either in conven- tional laparoscopy and robot-assisted procedures would be needed. 5. Deep Endometriosis Different studies investigated the role of robotic- assisted surgery specifically for the treatment of deep en- dometriosis, which is the type of endometriosis mostly cor- related with severe symptoms and more complex surgical procedures [ 57]. In 2017, Abo et al . [ 36] published a prospective cohort study assessing the feasibility of RALS for the treatment of deep endometriosis localizations, trying to outline benefits and limits. Thirty-five patients under- went a RALS procedure for different DIE lesions, includ- ing colorectal and urinary tract nodules. Effectiveness of the treatment was evaluated by the presence of recurrence at one-year follow up and by preoperatively and postopera- tively administering questionnaires on bowel function and quality of life. Overall, no recurrence was found at fol- low up and self questionnaires revealed a significant de- crease in pain symptoms in most patients. Two case se- ries reported a single institution experience on colorectal endometriosis treated robotically. The first from Ercoli et al. [ 37] evaluated perioperative outcomes in 35 patients who had undergone nerve-sparing nodulectomy of a recto- sigmoid endometriotic nodule. They define robotic nod- ulectomy as a safe and feasible procedure, independently from the nodule’s dimension, thanks to the precision ob- tainable by combining the 3D vision with freeness of move- ment of robotic instruments. On the other hand, Graham et al . [ 38] describe the implementation of robotically- assisted segmental resection and disk resection in 15 pa- tients with colorectal endometriosis. In their experience the procedure was feasible but burdened by a substantial num- ber of post-operative pelvic abscesses (33%), probably be- cause an extensive shaving and disk excisions may have led to diffuse tissue devitalization. Two more recent studies compared laparoscopic and robotically-assisted treatment of colorectal endometriosis. A prospective cohort study by Le Gac et al . [ 23] reports similar perioperative outcomes in 23 patients treated with RALS and 25 patients treated by conventional laparoscopy except for longer operative time in RALS group, defining RALS an adequate alterna- tive to laparoscopy for the treatment of deep endometrio- sis. In a prospective multicenter observational study, Rai- mondo et al . [ 24] compared perioperative outcomes and endometriosis-related symptoms trend in 44 patients treated for rectosigmoid endometriosis, with 22 patients under- going RALS and 22 patients undergoing conventional la- paroscopy. Operative room occupancy time was the only parameter which differed between the two groups but oper- ative time (from skin incision to suture), blood loss, com- plication rate and hospital stay was comparable. All pa- tients in both groups reported significant improvement in pain symptoms 12 months after surgery. All studies assessing robotic surgery for urinary tract endometriosis have a retrospective design. Giannini et al . [17] report a series of 31 cases of robotically-assisted erad- ication of ureteral endometriosis with a follow up period of 3 and 6 months. They conclude that RALS allows complete radical excision of ureteral endometriosis even in complex cases, but with not negligible rate of urinary tract complica- tions (16%). Similar results were shown by the work of Di Maida et al. [ 25] in 2020 and Philip et al. [ 39] in 2021. The only study comparing robotically-assisted procedures with conventional laparoscopy in the eradication of urinary tract endometriosis is a retrospective cohort study from le Car- pentier et al. [ 26]. The authors describe 37 cases of bladder endometriosis, 15 treated by RALS and 22 treated by con- ventional laparoscopy. Their results show no differences in terms of blood loss, operative time and hospital stay be- tween the two techniques; complication rate was higher for the RALS group (33% vs 14%) but RALS group included patients with bigger and deeper lesions, with median size of resected lesion being 30 mm for RALS group and 23.5 mm for laparoscopy group. The specific advantage of the use of RALS in urinary tract endometriosis surgery is the improved degree of freedom of movements even in small spaces such as the prevescical, paravescical and pararec- tal spaces compared to those allowed by conventional la- paroscopy. However, whether robotic assistance may im- prove the outcomes of patients with urinary tract DIE re- mains to be explored, especially when surgery should gain a functional outcome such as procedures of ureteral anasto- mosis or ureteral reimplantation. 6. Quality of Life Improvement of quality of life must be the end goal for each and every surgery aiming to treat endometrio- sis [ 58]. Quality of life is a less quantitative and more qualitative parameter, thus it is more difficult to assess in an objective manner. As a matter of fact, very few of the available studies on endometriosis surgery by RALS address the topic. In a prospective cohort study [ 36], 35 patients undergoing RALS for treatment of deep en- dometriosis were administered pre- and postoperatively questionnaires evaluating quality of life and digestive func- tion. Particularly, gastrointestinal symptoms were in de- tail evaluated through Gastrointestinal Quality of Life In- dex (GIQLI) [ 59], the Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom Questionnaire [ 60], the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Index [ 61] and the Bristol stool scale [ 62]. Also, endometriosis-related pain symptoms such as dysmenor- rhea and dyspareunia were evaluated using an 11-point Vi- sual Analogue Scale (V AS). Self questionnaires revealed a significant decrease in pain symptoms related to en- dometriosis in most patients and the values of several items of gastrointestinal standardized questionnaires were signifi- cantly improved. The LAROSE trial [ 19] measured quality 6 of life changes before and after surgery by administering the patients the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) [63] and the Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) [ 64] questionnaires at baseline and 6 weeks and 6 months af- ter surgery. The results are particularly interesting because for the first time quality of life after endometriosis-surgery is compared between conventional laparoscopy and robot- assisted procedures. According to the SF-12 question- naires, there were no differences in scores between the two techniques and between baseline, 6 weeks and 6 months. On the other hand, improvement was shown compared with baseline according to EHP-30 questionnaire results, which investigated, pain scores, control/powerlessness, emotions, social support, self-image, work, children, sexual inter- course, medical profession and treatment. No statistical differences were found between the laparoscopy and the RALS group. One other study investigated the effect of surgery for deep endometriosis, comparing conventional laparoscopy with robot-assisted laparoscopy [ 24]. Endometriosis- related symptoms were pre- and postoperatively evaluated with an 11-item Visual Analogue Scale (V AS). Consis- tent with the other studies available, all patients in both groups reported a significant improvement of pain and bowel symptoms after surgery at 12-months follow up. A recent study investigated one other aspect which could be included in a wide meaning of quality of life, the cosmetic satisfaction after surgery [ 65]. The authors report the results of a survey on 64 patients who underwent ei- ther robot-assisted or conventional laparoscopy for benign gynecological disease. Every skin incision was closed in the same manner and by the same surgeon but the posi- tion and width of the incisions were different according to the technique used. According to the results of the survey, the cosmetic satisfaction rate was higher in the laparoscopic group than in the robotic group. Obviously, cosmetic satis- faction cannot be the decisive parameter to choose one sur- gical route or another. Nevertheless, site of skin incision and possible esthetic concerns should be part of the preop- erative counseling with the patient. 7. Conclusions Robotic surgery has spread rapidly in the last decade. A 2020 cohort study published on Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) [ 66] reports that the use of robotics in general surgery increased from 1.8% in 2012 to 15.1% in 2018, and for certain procedures, the magnitude of the increase was greater. This trend is generalized even in other specialties, particularly urology and gynecology. In the context of a generalized need of optimization: of resources, of manpower, of money, of therapy, it is top- ical to assess whether a specific treatment is not only ef- fective and safe but also timely indicated, widely available and cost-worthy. Surprisingly, more than two decades af- ter the first robotic platform was introduced to assist la- paroscopic surgery, this kind of evaluation regarding en- dometriosis surgery is still far from being easy and handy. On one hand, the available literature demonstrates with- out a doubt the feasibility of endometriosis eradication via robotically-assisted laparoscopy. Also, safety of RALS for endometriosis could be cautiously assumed from the stud- ies with widest casuistry, which show comparable compli- cation rates and perioperative outcomes between conven- tional laparoscopy and RALS. There are very few studies which report a slightly higher complication rate for RALS procedures, especially for deep urinary tract endometriosis; anyway, the comparison of the results from all studies is dif- ficult because of the extreme variability in design, the low number of cases reported and the lack of standardization of the surgical technique for robotic procedures. Indeed, more reliable evidence would be gained from studies with largest cohorts and well standardized clinical parameters and tech- nical steps for the procedures. On the other hand, costs related to the use of robotic surgeries instead of laparoscopy should be thouroughly taken into account. Health care costs for endometriosis are substantial, with 29% of the cost attributed to the surgical procedure and 18% to hospitalization [ 67]. Whether the advantages related to robotic procedures, such as shorter operative time for some studies, faster recover and shorter hospital stay would compensate the increase in the cost of the surgical procedure itself, is yet to be determined. How- ever, this evaluation would constantly need to be updated on the available technology, which is tending towards eas- ier systems with faster docking and instrument interchange. Moreover, the effort in developing new robotic systems has been huge in the last few years, with new platforms try- ing to overcome some limits of the already available sys- tems. Indeed, also the competition between brands is a good premise to speed up technological advances and bring down the costs associated to robotic surgery. Besides, technical innovations are going to improve safety and effectiveness of procedures, by providing systems able to reduce the com- plication rate and to speed up the learning curve, such as the integration of preoperative imaging with the surgical field (augmented reality). Undoubtably, there is an impellent need for random- ized studies with comparison of the most recent avail- able technologies in a parametrizable manner, in order to found the ground on which standardized guidelines could be made. However, as it is known, innovation cannot be efficient at first and great innovations are the result of im- plementation and correction of small everyday changes. Robotic technology applied to laparoscopy in the treatment of endometriosis could be seen as an effective and safe alter- native to the conventional treatment but also as a promising tool for future achievements. 7 Author Contributions All authors named on this submission made substan- tial contributions to the study. Material preparation and data collection were made by LCM, DR and PC, analysis was made by ALM and RS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by CA and LCM. GG and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate Not applicable. Acknowledgment Not applicable. Funding This research received no external funding. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. GG is serv- ing as one of the Guest editors of this journal. DR and PC are serving as one of the Editorial Board members of this journal. We declare that GG, DR and PC had no involve- ment in the peer review of this article and has no access to information regarding its peer review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to CI.

[1] Giudice LC, Kao LC. Endometriosis. The Lancet. 2004; 364: 1789–1799. [2] Ballweg ML. Impact of endometriosis on women’s health: com- parative historical data show that the earlier the onset, the more severe the disease. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2004; 18: 201–218. [3] Kennedy S, Bergqvist A, Chapron C, D’Hooghe T, Dunselman G, Greb R, et al. ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treat- ment of endometriosis. Human Reproduction. 2005; 20: 2698– 2704. [4] Practice bulletin no. 114: management of endometriosis. Obstet- rics & Gynecology. 2010; 116: 223–236. [5] Fauconnier A, Fritel X, Chapron C. Endometriosis and pelvic pain: epidemiological evidence of the relationship and implica- tions. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité. 2009; 37: 57–69. [6] The Practice Committee of the American Society for Repro- ductive Medicine. Treatment of pelvic pain associated with en- dometriosis. Fertility and Sterility. 2008; 90: S260–S269. [7] Abbott J, Hawe J, Clayton RD, Garry R. The effects and effec- tiveness of laparoscopic excision of endometriosis: a prospec- tive study with 2±5 year follow-up. Human Reproduction. 2003; 18: 1922–1927. [8] Abbott J, Hawe J, Hunter D, Holmes M, Finn P , Garry R. La- paroscopic excision of endometriosis: a randomized, placebo- controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility. 2004; 82: 878–884. [9] Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Treatment of pelvic pain associated with endometrio- sis: a committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility. 2014; 101: 927– 235. [10] Alboni C, Mattos LC, Botticelli L, Malmusi S, Facchinetti F, Pecchi A. Surgical treatment of deep endometriosis with adeno- myosis externa: a challenging case in an infertile woman. Fer- tility and Sterility. 2021; 115: 1084–1086. [11] Samuelsson S, Sjövall A. On the Diagnostic V alue of La- paroscopy in Ovarian Endometriosis. Acta Obstetricia et Gyne- cologica Scandinavica. 1968; 47: 350–360. [12] Palmer R. Laparoscopy in diagnosis and treatment of en- dometriosis and pelvic adhesions. Nederlandsch Tijdschrift V oor V erloskunde en Gynaecologie. 1970; 70: 293–296. [13] Li C, Wang J, JT J, Zhang N. Review of the developmental his- tory of robotic surgery. Zhonghua Yi Shi Za Zhi. 2010; 40: 229– 233. [14] Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Unal E, Nezhat CH, Nezhat F. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific dream or reality? Fertility and Sterility. 2009; 91: 2620–2622. [15] Nezhat C, Saberi NS, Shahmohamady B, Nezhat F. Robotic- Assisted Laparoscopy in Gynecological Surgery. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2006; 10: 317–320. [16] Degueldre M, V andromme J, Huong PT, Cadière GB. Roboti- cally assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertility and Sterility. 2000; 74: 1020–1023. [17] Giannini A, Pisaneschi S, Malacarne E, Cela V , Melfi F, Pe- rutelli A, et al . Robotic Approach to Ureteral Endometrio- sis: Surgical Features and Perioperative Outcomes. Frontiers in Surgery. 2018; 5: 51. [18] Alboni C, Farulla A, Facchinetti F, Ercoli A. Robot-Assisted Nerve-sparing Resection of Bilateral Parametrial Deep Infiltrat- ing Endometriosis. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021; 28: 18–19. [19] Soto E, Luu TH, Liu X, Magrina JF, Wasson MN, Einarsson JI, et al . Laparoscopy vs. Robotic Surgery for Endometriosis (LAROSE): a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Fertil- ity and Sterility. 2017; 107: 996–1002.e3. [20] Nezhat FR, Sirota I. Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic As- sisted Laparoscopic Surgery V ersus Conventional Laparoscopy Surgery for Advanced-Stage Endometriosis. Journal of the So- ciety of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2014; 18: e2014.00094. [21] Nezhat CR, Stevens A, Balassiano E, Soliemannjad R. Robotic- Assisted Laparoscopy vs Conventional Laparoscopy for the Treatment of Advanced Stage Endometriosis. Journal of Min- imally Invasive Gynecology. 2015; 22: 40–44. [22] Vizzielli G, Cosentino F, Raimondo D, Turco LC, V argiu V , Iodice R, et al . Real three‐dimensional approach vs two‐dimensional camera with and without real‐time near‐infrared imaging with indocyanine green for detection of endometriosis: a case‐control study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2020; 99: 1330–1338. [23] Le Gac M, Ferrier C, Touboul C, Owen C, Arfi A, Boudy A,et al. Comparison of robotic versus conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of colorectal endometriosis: Pilot study of an expert center. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduc- tion. 2020; 49: 101885. [24] Raimondo D, Alboni C, Orsini B, Aru AC, Farulla A, Maletta M, et al . Comparison of perioperative outcomes between stan- dard laparoscopic and robot‐assisted approach in patients with rectosigmoid endometriosis. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2021; 100: 1740–1746. [25] Di Maida F, Mari A, Morselli S, Campi R, Sforza S, Cocci A, et al . Robotic treatment for urinary tract endometriosis: pre- liminary results and surgical details in a high-volume single- Institutional cohort study. Surgical Endoscopy. 2020; 34: 3236– 3242. [26] Le Carpentier M, Merlot B, Bot Robin V , Rubod C, Collinet P . Partial cystectomy for bladder endometriosis: Robotic as- sisted laparoscopy versus standard laparoscopy. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité. 2016; 44: 315–321. [27] Dulemba JF, Pelzel C, Hubert HB. Retrospective analysis of 8 robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopy in the treatment of pelvic pain indicative of endometriosis. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2013; 7: 163–169. [28] Mosbrucker C, Somani A, Dulemba J. Visualization of en- dometriosis: comparative study of 3-dimensional robotic and 2-dimensional laparoscopic endoscopes. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2018; 12: 59–66. [29] Moon H, Shim JE, Lee SR, Jeong K. The Comparison of Robotic Single-Site Surgery to Single-Port Laparoendoscopic Surgery for the Treatment of Advanced-Stage Endometriosis. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques. 2018; 28: 1483–1488. [30] Lee HJ, Lee JS, Lee YS. Comparison of serum antimüllerian hormone levels after robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic approach for ovarian cystectomy in endometrioma. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2020; 249: 9–13. [31] Gupta N, Miranda Blevins D, Holcombe J, Furr R. A compari- son of surgical outcomes between single-site robotic, multiport robotic and conventional laparoscopic techniques in perform- ing hysterectomy for Benign indications. Gynecology and Min- imally Invasive Therapy. 2020; 9: 59. [32] Huang Y , Duan K, Koythong T, Patil NM, Fan D, Liu J, et al . Application of robotic single-site surgery with optional addi- tional port for endometriosis: a single institution’s experience. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2022; 16: 127–135. [33] Magrina JF, Espada M, Kho RM, Cetta R, Chang YH, Magtibay PM. Surgical Excision of Advanced Endometriosis: Periopera- tive Outcomes and Impacting Factors. Journal of Minimally In- vasive Gynecology. 2015; 22: 944–950. [34] Gomes M, Costa Porto B, Parise Filho J, V asconcelos A, Bot- tura B, Marques R. Safety Model for the Introduction of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology. Modelo de segurança para a introdução da cirurgia robótica em ginecologia. Revista Brasileira de Gine- cologia e ObstetríCia / RBGO Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2018; 40: 397–402. [35] Poujois J, Mézan De Malartic C, Callec R, Bresler L, Hubert N, Judlin P , et al . Deep infiltrating endometriosis: Interest of the robotic approach for a fledgling team. Journal of Endometriosis and Pelvic Pain Disorders. 2019; 11: 152–157. [36] Abo C, Roman H, Bridoux V , Huet E, Tuech J, Resch B, et al. Management of deep infiltrating endometriosis by laparoscopic route with robotic assistance: 3-year experience. Journal of Gy- necology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction. 2017; 46: 9–18. [37] Ercoli A, Bassi E, Ferrari S, Surico D, Fagotti A, Fanfani F, et al. Robotic-Assisted Conservative Excision of Retrocervical- Rectal Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis: a Case Series. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2017; 24: 863–868. [38] Graham A, Chen S, Skancke M, Moawad G, Obias V . A re- view of deep infiltrative colorectal endometriosis treated roboti- cally at a single institution. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2019; 15: e2001. [39] Philip C, Froc E, Chapron C, Hebert T, Douvier S, Filipuzzi L, et al . Surgical Management of Urinary Tract Endometriosis: a 1-year Longitudinal Multicenter Pilot Study at 31 French Hos- pitals (by the FRIENDS Group). Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021; 28: 1889–1897.e1. [40] Riley KA, Benton AS, Deimling TA, Kunselman AR, Harkins GJ. Surgical Excision V ersus Ablation for Superficial Endometriosis-Associated Pain: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2019; 26: 71–77. [41] Diez SP , Borghesan G, Joyeux L, Meuleman C, Deprest J, Stoyanov D, et al . Evaluation of Haptic Feedback on Bimanu- ally Teleoperated Laparoscopy for Endometriosis Surgery. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2019; 66: 1207–1221. [42] Zhang Y , Delgado S, Liu J, Guan Z, Guan X. Robot-assisted Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery for Management of Endometriosis: a Pilot Study of 33 Cases. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021; 28: 2060– 2066. [43] Delgado SI, Koythong T, Turrentine MA, Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Guan X. Postoperative opioid use for patients with chronic pelvic pain undergoing robotic surgery for resection of en- dometriosis. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2022; 16: 421–427. [44] Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP , Golder S, Santaguida P , Alt- man DG, et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms re- porting in systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2016; 352: i157. [45] Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petti- crew M, et al . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. British Medical Journal. 2015; 350: g7647. [46] Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecys- tectomy. Surgery. 1992; 111: 518–526. [47] Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P . Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals of Surgery. 2004; 240: 205–213. [48] Bedaiwy MA, Abdel Rahman MY , Chapman M, Frasure H, Ma- hajan S, von Gruenigen VE, et al . Robotic-Assisted Hysterec- tomy for the Management of Severe Endometriosis: a Retro- spective Review of Short-Term Surgical Outcomes. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 2013; 17: 95–99. [49] Clark NV , Dmello M, Griffith KC, Gu X, Ajao MO, Cohen SL, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis and predictors of major complications: a retrospective cohort study. Acta Obste- tricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2020; 99: 317–323. [50] Morales-Conde S, Peeters A, Meyer YM, Antoniou SA, del Agua IA, Arezzo A, et al. European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endo- scopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy. 2019; 33: 996–1019. [51] American Society for Reproductive. Revised American Soci- ety for Reproductive Medicine classification of endometriosis: 1996. Fertility and Sterility. 1997; 67: 817–821. [52] Pasic RP , Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C. Comparing Robot-Assisted with Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: Impact on Cost and Clinical Outcomes. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2010; 17: 730–738. [53] Gargiulo AR, Srouji SS, Missmer SA, Correia KF, V ellinga T, Einarsson JI. Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Myomectomy Com- pared with Standard Laparoscopic Myomectomy. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2012; 120: 284–291. [54] Nezhat C, Modest AM, King LP . The role of the robot in treat- ing urinary tract endometriosis. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2013; 25: 308–311. [55] Hwang JH, Y oo HJ, Joo J, Kim S, Lim MC, Song YJ, et al . Learning curve analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection in early cervical cancer. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2012; 163: 219–223. [56] Monsarrat N, Collinet P , Narducci F, Leblanc E, Vinatier D. Robotic assistance in gynaecological surgery: State-of-the-art. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité. 2009; 37: 415–424. [57] Fauconnier A, Chapron C. Endometriosis and pelvic pain: epi- demiological evidence of the relationship and implications. Hu- man Reproduction Update. 2005; 11: 595–606. [58] Keckstein J, Becker CM, Canis M, Feki A, Grimbizis GF, Hum- melshoj L, et al. Recommendations for the surgical treatment of endometriosis. Part 2: deep endometriosis. Human Reproduc- tion Open. 2020; 2020: 1–25. 9 [59] Slim K, Bousquet J, Kwiatkowski F, Lescure G, Pezet D, Chip- poni J. First validation of the French version of the Gastrointesti- nal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI). Gastroentérologie Clinique et Biologique. 1999; 23: 25–31. [60] Knowles CH, Scott SM, Legg PE, Allison ME, Lunniss PJ. Level of classification performance of KESS (symptom scoring system for constipation) validated in a prospective series of 105 patients. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2002; 45: 842–843. [61] Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavran- tonis C, Thorson AG, et al . Fecal incontinence quality of life scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal inconti- nence. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2000; 43: 9–16. [62] Lewis SJ, Heaton KW. Stool Form Scale as a Useful Guide to Intestinal Transit Time. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterol- ogy. 1997; 32: 920–924. [63] Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care. 1996; 34: 220–233. [64] Jones G, Kennedy S, Barnard A, Wong J, Jenkinson C. Develop- ment of an Endometriosis Quality-of-Life Instrument: The En- dometriosis Health Profile-30. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2001; 98: 258–264. [65] Ozbasli E, Takmaz O, Albayrak N, Gungor M. Cosmetic Out- come of Robotic Surgery Compared to Laparoscopic Surgery for Benign Gynecologic Disease. Journal of the Society of La- paroscopic & Robotic Surgeons. 2022; 26: e2021.00081. [66] Sheetz KH, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures. JAMA Net- work Open. 2020; 3: e1918911. [67] Simoens S, Dunselman G, Dirksen C, Hummelshoj L, Bokor A, Brandes I, et al . The burden of endometriosis: costs and qual- ity of life of women with endometriosis and treated in referral centres. Human Reproduction. 2012; 27: 1292–1299. 10