Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 287, Issue 5, pp 907–918

Robot-assisted hysterectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches: systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Michelle O’Neill
  • Patrick S. Moran
  • Conor Teljeur
  • Orfhlaith E. O’Sullivan
  • Barry A. O’Reilly
  • Matt Hewitt
  • Martin Flattery
  • Máirín Ryan
General Gynecology



To review the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted hysterectomy compared to traditional open and conventional laparoscopic surgery, differentiating radical, simple total with node staging, and simple total hysterectomy.


Medline, Embase, the Cochrane library, and the Journal of Robotic Surgery were searched for controlled trials and observational studies with historic or concurrent controls. Data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.


Compared to open surgery, robot-assisted radical hysterectomy is associated with reduced hospital stay and blood transfusions. For simple total hysterectomy with node staging, robot-assisted surgery is associated with reduced hospital stay, complications, and blood transfusions compared to open surgery. Compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted simple total hysterectomy with node staging is associated with complications and conversions.


Compared to open surgery, robot-assisted hysterectomy offers benefits for reduced length of hospital stay and blood transfusions. The best evidence of improved outcomes is for simple total hysterectomy with node staging. Study quality was poor.


Hysterectomy Meta-analysis Robot-assisted Systematic review 


  1. 1.
    Herron D, Marohn M (2008) A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22(2):313–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, Mierzwinski-Urban M et al (2011) Robot-assisted surgery compared with open surgery and laparoscopic surgery: clinical effectiveness and economic analyses. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reza M, Maeso S, Blasco JA, Andradas E (2010) Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg 97(12):1772–1783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schünemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J clin epidemiol 64(4):383–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hozo S, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5(1):13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ (2001) Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds.) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context edition. London: BMJ Publishing Group, pp 285–312Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ (2009) A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 172(1):137–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Viechtbauer W, Cheung MWL (2010) Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Method 1(2):112–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R: A language and environment for statistical computing [computer program] (2011) R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36(3):1–48Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nick AM, Lange J, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Schlumbrecht MP (2011) Rate of vaginal cuff separation following laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 120(1):47–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sert B, Abeler V (2007) Robotic radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical carcinoma patients, comparing results with total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy cases. The future is now? Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 3(3):224–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):407–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN et al (2008) A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(4):360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN (2008) A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(4):357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    DeNardis SA, Holloway RW, Bigsby GE IV, Pikaart DP, Ahmad S, Finkler NJ (2008) Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):412–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A, Abaid LN, Mendivil A, Boggess JF (2008) What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol 111(1):41–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Feltmate CM (2008) Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):425–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nezhat FR, Datta MS, LIu C, Chuang L, Zakashansky K (2008) Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 12(3):227–237Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Veljovich DS, Paley PJ, Drescher CW, Everett EN, Shah C, Peters WA III (2008) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(6):679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Estape R, Lambrou N, Diaz R, Estape E, Dunkin N, Rivera A (2009) A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 113(3):357–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lowe M, Hoekstra A, Jairam-Thodla A, Singh D, Buttin B, Lurain J (2009) A comparison of robot-assisted and traditional radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. J Robot Surg 3(1):19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maggioni A, Minig L, Zanagnolo V, Peiretti M, Sanguineti F, Bocciolone L et al (2009) Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study. Gynecol Oncol 115(1):60–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Gemer O, Bhagan L (2009) Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 13(2):125–128Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seamon LG, Bryant SA, Rheaume PS, Kimball KJ, Huh WK, Fowler JM et al (2009) Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 114(1):16–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS, Kim KH, Carlson MJ, Phillips GS et al (2009) Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol 113(1):36–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shashoua AR, Gill D, Locher SR (2009) Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 13(3):364–369Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cantrell LA, Mendivil A, Gehrig PA, Boggess JF (2010) Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience. Gynecol Oncol 117(2):260–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cardenas-Goicoechea J, Adams S, Bhat SB, Randall TC (2010) Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center. Gynecol Oncol 117(2):224–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Geisler JP, Orr CJ, Khurshid N, Phibbs G, Manahan KJ (2010) Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared with open radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20(3):438–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Giep B, Giep H, Hubert H (2010) Comparison of minimally invasive surgical approaches for hysterectomy at a community hospital: robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. J Robot Surg 4(3):167–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gocmen A, Sanlikan F, Ucar MG (2010) Comparison of robotic-assisted surgery outcomes with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging in Turkey. Arch Gynecol Obstet 5:539–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gocmen A, Sanlikan F, Ucar M (2010) Comparison of outcomes between laparotomy and robotic technique for cervical cancer. J Robot Surg 4(2):123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goel M, Zollinger T, Moore D (2011) Surgical staging of endometrial cancer: robotic versus open technique outcomes in a contemporary single surgeon series. J Robot Surg 5(2):109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Halliday D, Lau S, Vaknin Z, Deland C, Levental M, McNamara E (2010) Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison of outcomes and cost. J Robot Surg 4(4):211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Holtz DO, Miroshnichenko G, Finnegan MO, Chernick M, Dunton CJ (2010) Endometrial cancer surgery costs: robot vs laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(4):500–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jung YW, Lee DW, Kim SW, Nam EJ, Kim JH, Kim JW et al (2010) Robot-assisted staging using three robotic arms for endometrial cancer: comparison to laparoscopy and laparotomy at a single institution. J Surg Oncol 101(2):116–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Matthews CA, Reid N, Ramakrishnan V, Hull K, Cohen S (2010) Evaluation of the introduction of robotic technology on route of hysterectomy and complications in the first year of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(5):499–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nam EJ, Kim SW, Kim S, Kim JH, Jung YW, Paek JH (2010) A case-control study of robotic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy using 3 robotic arms compared with abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20(7):1284–1289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nevadunsky N, Clark R, Ghosh S, Muto M, Berkowtiz R, Vitonis A (2010) Comparison of robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy for treatment of endometrial cancer in obese and morbidly obese patients. J Robot Surg 4(4):247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case–control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150(1):92–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schreuder HWR, Zweemer RP, Van Baal WM, Van DL, Dijkstra JC, Verheijen RHM (2010) From open radical hysterectomy to robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: aspects of a single institution learning curve. Gynecol Surg 7(6):253–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lim PC, Kang E, Park dH (2011) A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol 120(3):413–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Health Information and Quality Authority (2011) Health technology assessment of robot-assisted surgery in selected surgical procedures. DublinGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    de Kroon CD, Gaarenstroom KN, van Poelgeest MI, Peters AA, Trimbos JB (2010) Nerve sparing in radical surgery for early-stage cervical cancer: yes we should! Int J Gynecol Cancer 20(11 Suppl 2):S39–S41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Barnett JC, Judd JP, Wu JM, Scales J, Myers ER, Havrilesky LJ (2010) Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 116(3):685–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hohwü L, Borre M, Ehlers L, Venborg Pedersen K (2011) A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ 14:403–409Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Collins S, Tulikangas P (2010) Randomized trials in robotic surgery: a practical impossibility? Int Urogynecol J 21(9):1045–1047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sarlos D, Kots LV, Stevanovic N, von Felton S, Schar G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 120(3):604–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle O’Neill
    • 1
  • Patrick S. Moran
    • 1
  • Conor Teljeur
    • 1
  • Orfhlaith E. O’Sullivan
    • 2
  • Barry A. O’Reilly
    • 2
  • Matt Hewitt
    • 2
  • Martin Flattery
    • 3
  • Máirín Ryan
    • 1
  1. 1.Health Technology AssessmentHealth Information and Quality AuthorityDublin 7Ireland
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyCork University Maternity HospitalCorkIreland
  3. 3.NHMRC Clinical Trials CentreUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations