title: Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare perioperative outcomes between robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of endometrial cancer by conducting a meta-analysis.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE up to January 8, 2016. Studies clearly documenting a comparison between RAS and CLS for patients with endometrial cancer were included. The perioperative outcomes of interest included intraoperative visceral injuries, postoperative complications, operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, total lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were pooled with either a fixed-effects or a random-effects model.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 19 studies were included in the analysis, involving 3056 patients. The pooled analysis showed that RAS was associated with lower EBL (WMD -77.65; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -105.58 to -49.72), lower conversion rate (OR 0.29; 95 % CI 0.18-0.46), and shorter hospital stay (WMD -0.48; 95 % CI -0.70 to -0.26) compared to CLS. The incidence of intraoperative visceral injuries, operation time, transfusion rate, and TLNH showed no significant differences between RAS and CLS.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  RAS is a feasible and effective surgical approach that may be superior to CLS for the treatment of endometrial cancer, with lower EBL and lower conversion rate. Further prospective randomized trials are required to validate our findings.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
authors.forename: Weimin
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Xie
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
authors.forename: Dongyan
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Cao
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. yangjiaxin4022@163.com.
authors.forename: Jiaxin
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Yang
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
authors.forename: Keng
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Shen
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No. 1 Shuaifuyuan, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
authors.forename: Lin
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Zhao
mesh_terms: D016889:Endometrial Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery*; D005260:Female; D013509:Gynecologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D065287:Robotic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*
keywords: Conventional laparoscopic surgery; Endometrial cancer; Meta-analysis; Perioperative outcomes; Robot-assisted surgery