1. Home
  2. Vol 29, No 12 (2025)
  3. Alghamdi

Comparative analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus traditional abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Hayat A. Alghamdi(1), Mead AL-Zahrani(2), Sara Alkodae(3), Raghad Alzeer(4), Reema Alharbi(5), Juri Althafar(6), Muntaha Alsulaimani(7), Amira E. Elbashir(8),


(1) Obstetrics and Gynecological Nursing, Maternal and Child Health Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, Al-Baha University, Saudi Arabia (KSA)
(2) College of Applied Medical Science, AL-Baha University, AL-Baha, Saudi Arabia
(3) College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
(4) College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
(5) College of Medicine, Qassim University, Qassim, Saudi Arabia
(6) College of Medicine, King Faisal University, Hofuf, SaudArabia
(7) College of Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
(8) Obstetrics and Gynecological Nursing, Maternal and Child Health Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing -Al Baha University, Al-Baha, Saudi Arabia
Corresponding Author

Abstract


Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumors affecting women of reproductive age, often requiring surgical intervention. This meta-analysis and systematic review compared the effectiveness, safety, and cost of three surgical approaches: robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RLM), traditional abdominal myomectomy (AM), and laparoscopic myomectomy (LM). Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases for studies published through January 2024, with no restrictions on publication date. Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and nine studies in the meta-analysis, comprising 2,559 patients. Our findings revealed that AM had significantly shorter operative time compared to RLM (mean difference: 82.54 minutes; 95% CI: -122.14, -42.93; P < 0.00001; I² = 94%). However, RLM was associated with significantly shorter hospital stays than AM (mean difference: 1.54 days; 95% CI: 1.31 to 1.77; P≤0.00001; I²=58%). No significant differences were found in operative time (mean difference: 36.47 minutes; 95% CI: -11.58, 84.51; P = 0.14) or blood loss between RLM and LM. Intraoperative bleeding (EBL >1000 mL) was most common in AM (7.0%) compared to RLM (1.3%) and LM (2.6%). Postoperative transfusion rates were highest in AM (20%), followed by LM (5.8%) and RLM (3.8%). The study demonstrated substantial heterogeneity (I² > 75% for most outcomes), attributed to differences in patient characteristics and study designs. In conclusion, RLM provides favorable outcomes with shorter hospital stays and fewer complications compared to AM, while showing comparable results to LM, though at potentially higher cost.

References


Morales H S G, López R R, López G G P, MondragónP J C, Cortés D V, Hernández HS and Camacho F M R. Surgical approach to uterine myomatosis in patients with infertility: open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery; results according to the quantity of fibroids. JBRA Assisted Reproduction (2022); 26(1): 44.‏

Griffin L, Feinglass J, Garrett A, Henson A, Cohen L, Chaudhari A and Lin A. Postoperative outcomes after robotic versus abdominal myomectomy. JSLS:. Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons,(2013); 17(3):407.‏

SanghaR, Eisenstein DI, George A, Munkarah A and Wegienka G. Surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared to abdominal myomectomy. Journal of robotic surgery (2010); 4: 229-233.‏

Hanafi M. Comparative study between robotic laparoscopic myomectomy and abdominal myomectomy. Middle East Fertility Society Journal, (2014); 19(4): 268-273.‏

Nash K, Feinglass J, Zei C, Lu G, Mengesha B, Lewicky-Gaupp C and Lin A. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics (2012); 285:435-440.‏

MacKoul P, Baxi R, Danilyants N, van der Does L Q, Haworth L R and Kazi N. Laparoscopic-assisted myomectomy with bilateral uterine artery occlusion/ligation. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology (2019); 26(5): 856-864.‏

Page M J, McKenzie J E, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann T C, Mulrow CD and Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. (2021); bmj,372.‏

Ma L L, Wang YY, Yang ZH, Huang D, Weng H and Zeng XT. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?. Military Medical Researchm (2020); 7: 1-

Morales HSG, López RR, López, GG P Mondragón, PJC Cortés DV, Hernández HS, Camacho and FM R. Surgical approach to uterine myomatosis in patients with infertility: open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery; results according to the quantity of fibroids. JBRA Assisted Reproduction, (2022); 26(1): 44.‏

Famuyide A O, Breitkopf D M, Hopkins M R, Laughlin-Tommaso and SK. Asymptomatic thickened endometrium in postmenopausal women: malignancy risk.Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, (2014); 21(5):782-786.‏

Tusheva O A, Cohen S L and Einarsson J I. Hand-assisted approach to laparoscopic myomectomy and hysterectomy. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, (2013); 20(2): 234-237.‏

Gargiulo, AR. Robotic Myomectomy with Flexible CO2 Laser. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, (2011);18(6): S27.‏

Nash K, FeinglassJ, Zei C, Lu G, Mengesha B, Lewicky-Gaupp C and Lin A. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, (2012);285: 435-440.‏

Tusheva OA, Cohen SL and Einarsson J I. Hand-assisted approach to laparoscopic myomectomy and hysterectomy. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, (2013); 20(2): 234-237.‏

Kriplani A, Kachhawa G, Awasthi D and Kulshrestha V. Laparoscopic-assisted uterovaginal anastomosis in congenital atresia of uterine cervix: follow-up study. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, (2012);19(4): 477-484.‏

Lim M Y, Thomson A J, Paterson A M, Renwick A and HairM. Teaching the iPod Generation: A Novel Approach to Training in Operative Gynaecology. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, (2009);16(6): S103.‏

Ascher-Walsh C J and Capes T L. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, (2010);17(3): 306-310.‏

Hudson, C. O., and Karp, D. R. Combined Management of Traumatic Perineal Cloaca Using a Biologic-Grafted Transvaginal Technique and Interstim. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, (2013); 20(6): S54.‏

Bedient, C. E., Magrina, J. F., Noble, B. N., and Kho, R. M. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, (2009);201(6):566-e1.‏

Nezhat, C., Lavie, O., Hsu, S., Watson, J., Barnett, O., and Lemyre, M. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy—a retrospective matched control study. Fertility and Sterility, (2009); 91(2):556-559.‏

Grant M A, Chow G E and Burney RO. Evaluation of ovarian reserve following tubal sterilization using anti-Müllerian hormone. Fertility and Sterility, (2011); 95(4): S7.‏

Tang N, Stevens E E and Lee Y. CV Care with the Lee Modification: Reaching New Boundaries in Radical Hysterectomy. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, (2012);19(6): S36.‏

Thomson A J. Physical property of electricity. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, (2013); 20(3): 269-270.‏

Göçmen A, Şanlıkan F and Uçar M G. Comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy outcomes with laparoscopic myomectomy. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics,(2013); 287: 91-96.‏

FalconeT, Goldberg JM, Margossian H and Stevens L. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a human pilot study. Fertility and sterility. (2000);73(5):1040-1042.‏

Advincula AP, Song A, Burke W and Reynolds RK. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, (2004);11(4): 511-518.‏

Tsakos E, Xydias EM, Ziogas A C, Sorrentino F, Nappi L, Vlachos N and Daniilidis A. Multi-port robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative clinical and fertility outcomes. Journal of Clinical Medicine,(2023);12(12):4134.‏

Wang T, Tang H, XieZ and Deng S. Robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic and abdominal myomectomy for treatment of uterine fibroids: a meta-analysis. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies. (2018);27(5):249-264.‏

Pundir J, Pundir V, Walavalkar R, Omanwa K, Lancaster G and Kayani S. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis .Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology,(2013);20(3): 335-345.‏

Iavazzo C, Mamais I and Gkegkes ID. Robotic assisted vs laparoscopic and/or open myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical evidence. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, (2016);294: 5-17.‏

Takmaz O, Ozbasli E, Gundogan S, Bastu E, Batukan C, DedeS and Gungor M. Symptoms and health quality after laparoscopic and robotic myomectomy. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, (2018); 22(4): e2018-00030.‏

FlycktR, Soto E, Nutter B and Falcone T. Comparison of long‐term fertility and bleeding outcomes after robotic‐assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy.Obstetrics and Gynecology International, 2016;(1): 2789201.‏

Nash K, Feinglass J, Zei C, Lu G, Mengesha B, Lewicky-Gaupp C and Lin A Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, (2012);285: 435-440.‏

LuoW, Duan K, Zhang N, Delgado S, Guan Z and Guan X. A comparison of three approaches for laparoscopic single-site (LESS) myomectomy: conventional, robotic, and hand assisted. Journal of robotic surgery, (2021); 15: 643-649.‏

Ascher-Walsh CJ and Capes T L. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, (2010);17(3): 306-310


Full Text: PDF

Article Metrics

Abstract View : 713 times
PDF Download : 264 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.