Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs abdominal and ...
View graph of relations

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

  • Jyotsna Pundir
  • Vishal Pundir
  • Rajalaxmi Walavalkar
  • Kireki Omanwa
  • Gillian Lancaster
  • Salma Kayani
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>05/2013
<mark>Journal</mark>Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Issue number3
Number of pages11
Pages (from-to)335-345
Publication StatusPublished
Early online date5/03/13
<mark>Original language</mark>English


Herein is presented a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence related to operative outcomes associated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RLM) compared with abdominal myomectomy (AM) and laparoscopic myomectomy (LM). Outcome measures included estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, operating time, complications, length of hospital stay (LOHS), and costs. Meta-analysis 1 compared RLM vs AM, and meta-analysis 2 compared RLM vs LM. Studies scored moderately well on the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. No significant differences were found in age, body mass index, or number, diameter, and weight of myomas. In meta-analysis 1, EBL, blood transfusion, and LOHS were significantly lower; risk of complications was similar; and operating time and costs were significantly higher with RLM. In meta-analysis 2, no significant differences were noted in EBL, operating time, complications, and LOHS with RLM; however, blood transfusion risk and costs were higher. It was concluded that insofar as operative outcomes, RLM has significant short-term benefits compared with AM and no benefits compared with LM. Long-term benefits such as recurrence, fertility, and obstetric outcomes remain uncertain.