Objective: Survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) remain controversial.Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate survival outcomes between RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: Studies comparing between RRH and LRH published up to November 2022 were systemically searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of the published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently extracted data. Studies with information on recurrence and death after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were also included. The extracted data were analyzed using the Stata MP software package version 17.0. Results: Twenty eligible clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios of RRH for recurrence and death were 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.91–1.55; p=0.613; I 2 =0.0%) and 0.96 (95% CI=0.65–1.42; p=0.558; I 2 =0.0%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, the quality of study methodology, study size, country where the study was conducted, and publication year were not associated with survival outcomes between RRH and LRH. Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrates that the survival outcomes are comparable between RRH and LRH.

Objective: Survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) remain controversial.Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate survival outcomes between RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: Studies comparing between RRH and LRH published up to November 2022 were systemically searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of the published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently extracted data. Studies with information on recurrence and death after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were also included. The extracted data were analyzed using the Stata MP software package version 17.0. Results: Twenty eligible clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios of RRH for recurrence and death were 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.91–1.55; p=0.613; I 2 =0.0%) and 0.96 (95% CI=0.65–1.42; p=0.558; I 2 =0.0%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, the quality of study methodology, study size, country where the study was conducted, and publication year were not associated with survival outcomes between RRH and LRH. Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrates that the survival outcomes are comparable between RRH and LRH.

Objective: Survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) remain controversial.Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate survival outcomes between RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Methods: Studies comparing between RRH and LRH published up to November 2022 were systemically searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of the published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently extracted data. Studies with information on recurrence and death after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were also included. The extracted data were analyzed using the Stata MP software package version 17.0. Results: Twenty eligible clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios of RRH for recurrence and death were 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.91–1.55; p=0.613; I 2 =0.0%) and 0.96 (95% CI=0.65–1.42; p=0.558; I 2 =0.0%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, the quality of study methodology, study size, country where the study was conducted, and publication year were not associated with survival outcomes between RRH and LRH. Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrates that the survival outcomes are comparable between RRH and LRH.