The evidence behind robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Despite recent advancements, the advantage of robotic surgery over other traditional modalities still harbors academic inquiries. We seek to take a recently published high-profile narrative systematic review regarding robotic surgery and add meta-analytic tools to identify further benefits of robotic surgery.

Methods: Data from the published systematic review were extracted and meta-analysis were performed. A fixed-effect model was used when heterogeneity was not significant (Chi p ≥ 0.05, I ≤ 50%) and a random-effects model was used when heterogeneity was significant (Chi p < 0.05, I > 50%). Forest plots were generated using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results: Robotic surgery had comparable overall complications compared to laparoscopic surgery (p = 0.85), which was significantly lower compared to open surgery (odds ratio 0.68, p = 0.005). Compared to laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery had fewer open conversions (risk difference - 0.0144, p = 0.03), shorter length of stay (mean difference - 0.23 days, p = 0.01), but longer operative time (mean difference 27.98 min, p < 0.00001). Compared to open surgery, robotic surgery had less estimated blood loss (mean difference - 286.8 mL, p = 0.0003) and shorter length of stay (mean difference - 1.69 days, p = 0.001) with longer operative time (mean difference 44.05 min, p = 0.03). For experienced robotic surgeons, there were less overall intraoperative complications (risk difference - 0.02, p = 0.02) and open conversions (risk difference - 0.03, p = 0.04), with equivalent operative duration (mean difference 23.32 min, p = 0.1) compared to more traditional modalities.

Conclusion: Our study suggests that compared to laparoscopy, robotic surgery may improve hospital length of stay and open conversion rates, with added benefits in experienced robotic surgeons showing lower overall intraoperative complications and comparable operative times.