We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy vs traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy: five metaanalyses.
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2011 November
To assess differences between laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with or without robot-assistance, we performed metaanalyses of 5 key indices strongly associated with societal and hospital costs, patient safety, and intervention quality. The 5 indexes included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, number of conversions to laparotomy, hospital length of stay (LOS), and number of postoperative complications. A search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Science citation index online databases yielded a total of 605 studies. After a systematic review, we proceeded with meta-analysis of 14 articles for EBL, with a summary effect of -0.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], -42.42 to 46.20); 20 for operative time, with a summary effect of 0.66 (95% CI, -15.72 to 17.04); 17 for LOS, with a summary effect of -0.43 (95% CI, -0.68 to -0.17); 15 for conversion to laparotomy (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.79 with a random model); and 14 for postoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.09 with a random model). In conclusion, compared with traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy, robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with shorter LOS and fewer postoperative complications and conversions to laparotomy; there were no differences in EBL and operative time. These results confirm that robot-assisted laparoscopy has less deletorious effect on hospital, society, and patient stress and leads to better intervention quality.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app