Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy vs. open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer

Recent data has brought into question the safety of minimally invasive techniques for radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. After the publication of several new studies, we aimed to compare robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) with open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in the management of women with early stage cervical cancer, while excluding minimally invasive cases performed without robotic assistance. We searched six databases from inception until 11/30/2021. The original search found 233 unique papers, and ultimately 35 studies, comprising 11,888 total radical hysterectomies, met criteria for our final analysis. We included all studies including the intervention of RRH for early stage cervical cancer, with the comparator of ORH. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs), case-control, retrospective cohort, and prospective cohort. We included studies that had robotic and laparoscopic arms, but excluded any studies that did not specifically provide specific data as to each group. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference and a 95% confidence interval, while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio and a 95% confidence interval. We found that there was no significant difference between RRH and ORH regarding five-year Overall Survival (OR=1.28[0.66,2.46], (P = 0.46)), disease free survival (OR=0.94[0.77,1.14], (P = 0.51)), or recurrence (OR=0.92[0.75,1.13], (P = 0.44)) intraoperative complications (OR=0.75[0.55,1.02], (P = 0.07)), or mortality (OR=0.81[0.53,1.22], (P = 0.31)). We found that RRH was better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD=-397.95[-471.65,-324.24], (P