Comparison of efficacy of robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in the treatment of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

• Main Authors: Can Shi, Yingchun Gao, Yijun Yang, Lei Zhang, Juanpeng Yu, Ting Zhang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2019-09-01
• Series: World Journal of Surgical Oncology
• Subjects: Ovarian cancer; Robotic surgery; Laparotomy; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12957-019-1702-9

Abstract Background We intended to compare the clinical effect of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy in ovarian cancer treatment. Methods The included studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) was used to evaluate the study quality. Effect measures were presented with weighted mean difference (WMD)/odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and heterogeneity test was assessed using Q test and I 2 statistics to determine the use of the random effects model or fixed effects model. Egger’s test was used to assess the publication bias. Results A total of eight studies was included in this meta-analysis with a MINORS score of 16–18. In the random effects model, estimated blood loss (EBL) of robotic surgery was significantly less compared with laparotomy (WMD = − 521.7027, 95% CI − 809.7816; − 233.6238). In the fixed effects model, length of hospital stay (LHS) (WMD = − 5.2225, 95% CI − 6.1485; − 4.2965) and postoperative complication (PC) (OR = 0.4710, 95% CI 0.2537; 0.8747) of robotic surgery were significantly less, and overall survival (OS) rate (OR = 6.4355, 95% CI 1.6722; 24.7678, P = 0.0070) of robotic surgery was significantly higher compared with laparotomy. There was no difference in the effect size of all variables between robotic surgery and laparoscopy. Meanwhile, a publication bias (t = 6.8290, P = 0.002405) was only identified for PC in robotic surgery and laparotomy groups; no publication bias was identified for the other variables. Conclusions Despite the above results, it failed to show oncological safety and recurrence by pathological stages or histologic types in this meta-analysis, and those confounding factors might affect the clinical outcome. Future meta-analyses with a larger number of eligible randomized controlled trial studies were needed to determine the most suitable treatment method for patients with different stages and types of ovarian cancer.