Laparoscopic versus robotic abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Abstract

Background

The current evidence is inconclusive on whether robotic or laparoscopic surgery is the optimal platform for minimally invasive surgery. Existing comparisons techniques focus on short-term outcomes only, while potentially being confounded by a lack of standardisation in robotic procedures. There is a pertinent need for an up-to-date comparison between minimally invasive surgical techniques. We aimed to systematically review randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in major surgery.

Methods

Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to 13th September 2022. Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in abdominal and pelvic surgery. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Short-term, health-related quality of life, and long-term, outcomes were analysed.

Results

Forty-five studies, across thirteen procedures, involving 7364 patients were included. All of the studies reported non-significant differences in mortality between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. In majority of studies, there was no significant difference in complication rate ( n = 31/35, 85.6%), length of postoperative stay ( n = 27/32, 84.4%), and conversion rate ( n = 15/18, 83.3%). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter operative time ( n = 16/31, 51.6%) and lower total cost ( n = 11/13, 84.6%). Twenty three studies reported on quality of life outcomes; majority ( n = 14/23, 60.9%) found no significant differences.

Conclusion

There were no significant differences between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery with regards to mortality and morbidity outcomes in the majority of studies. Robotic surgery was frequently associated with longer operative times and higher overall cost. Selected studies found potential benefits in post-operative recovery time, and patient-reported outcomes; however, these were not consistent across procedures and trials, with most studies being underpowered to detect differences in secondary outcomes. Future research should focus on assessing quality of life, and long-term outcomes to further elucidate where the robotic platform could lead to patient benefits, as the technology evolves.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-023-10275-8.