You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original Article
Infectious complications of laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
  1. Alexandre R Marra1,2,3,
  2. Mireia Puig-Asensio1,2,
  3. Michael B Edmond1,2,4,
  4. Marin L Schweizer2,5 and
  5. David Bender6
  1. 1 Office of Clinical Quality, Safety and Performance Improvement University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
  2. 2 Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
  3. 3 Division of Medical Practice, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
  4. 4 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
  5. 5 The Center for Comprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation, Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
  6. 6 Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
  1. Correspondence to Alexandre R Marra, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA; alexandre-rodriguesmarra{at}uiowa.edu

Abstract

Objective We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the infectious complications of hysterectomy, comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy.

Methods We searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, and EMBASE through July 2018 for studies evaluating robotic-assisted hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy, and infectious complications. We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled OR estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I2 estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. Pooled ORs were calculated separately based on the reason for hysterectomy (eg, benign uterine diseases, endometrial cancer, and cervical cancer).

Results Fifty studies were included in the final review for the meta-analysis with 176 016 patients undergoing hysterectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infectious complication events between robotic-assisted hysterectomy and laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.74 to 1.28). When we performed a stratified analysis, similar results were found with no statistically significant difference in infectious complications comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy among patients with benign uterine disease (pooled OR 1.10; 95 % CI 0.70 to 1.73), endometrial cancer (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.55 to 1.73), or cervical cancer (pooled OR 1.09; 95 % CI 0.60 to 1.97).

Conclusion In our meta-analysis the rate of infectious complications associated with robotic-assisted hysterectomy was no different than that associated with conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy.

  • laparoscopy
  • robotic
  • hysterectomy
  • infectious complication
  • minimally invasive technique

https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2018-000098

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text