Advertisement

Mortality Rates in Benign Laparoscopic and Robotic Gynecologic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Published:October 15, 2019DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.10.005

      ABSTRACT

      Objective

      To review mortality rates in benign gynecologic minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic surgery (MIS) and the rates associated with commonly performed MIS procedures.

      Data Sources

      An electronic-based search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database for articles published in the last 10 years in English, French, German, Spanish, and Italian.

      Methods of Study Selection

      All MIS articles in benign gynecology reporting operative mortality (within 30 days) were reviewed.

      Tabulation, Integration, and Results

      The articles identified through the aforementioned search criteria were independently evaluated by the first 2 authors. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies and Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials were used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was applied to calculate pooled mortality rates using the inverse-variance method. Twenty-one articles (124 216 patients) were included. Operative mortality from any benign MIS (laparoscopy and robotics) procedure was 1:6456 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1:3946–1:10 562). Studies were then grouped based on the surgical procedure. The mortality rate for hysterectomy (119 721 patients), sacrocolpopexy, and adnexal surgery and diagnostic laparoscopy was 1:6814 (95% CI: 1:4119–1:11 275), 1:1246 (95% CI: 1:36–1:44 700), and 1:2245 (95% CI: 1:45–1:113 372), respectively. Eighteen articles reported operative mortality for laparoscopic surgery and 4 for robotic surgery.

      Conclusion

      Operative mortality in benign minimally invasive gynecologic surgery is low, and mortality for laparoscopic and robotic approaches appears to be similar.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      AAGL Member Login
      AAGL Member, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Manoucheri E
        • Fuchs-Weizman N
        • Cohen SL
        • Wang KC
        • Einarsson J
        MAUDE: analysis of robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21: 592-595
        • Hilger WS
        • Magrina JF
        • Magtibay PM
        Laparoscopic management of the adnexal mass.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 49: 535-548
        • Magrina JF
        • Cetta RL
        • Chang YH
        • Guevara G
        • Magtibay PM
        Analysis of secondary cytoreduction for recurrent ovarian cancer by robotics, laparoscopy and laparotomy.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 129: 336-340
        • Shah CA
        • Beck T
        • Liao JB
        • Giannakopoulos NV
        • Veljovich D
        • Paley P
        Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer.
        J Gynecol Oncol. 2017; 28: e82
        • Jacoby VL
        • Autry A
        • Jacobson G
        • Domush R
        • Nakagawa S
        • Jacoby A
        Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114: 1041-1048
        • Behera MA
        • Likes 3rd, CE
        • Judd JP
        • Barnett JC
        • Havrilesky LJ
        • Wu JM
        Cost analysis of abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted myomectomies.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012; 19: 52-57
        • Ngan TYT
        • Zakhari A
        • Czuzoj-Shulman N
        • Tulandi T
        • Abenhaim HA
        Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomy for uterine leiomyomas: a comparison of complications and costs.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018; 40: 432-439
        • Gala RB
        • Margulies R
        • Steinberg A
        • et al.
        Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21: 353-361
        • Chen CC
        • Falcone T
        Robotic gynecologic surgery: past, present, and future.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 52: 335-343
        • Lönnerfors C
        • Reynisson P
        • Geppert B
        • Persson J
        The effect of increased experience on complications in robotic hysterectomy for malignant and benign gynecological disease.
        J Robot Surg. 2015; 9: 321-330
        • Newcombe RG
        Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods.
        Stat Med. 1998; 17: 857-872
        • Kortram K
        • Ijzermans JN
        • Dor FJ
        Perioperative events and complications in minimally invasive live donor nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Transplantation. 2016; 100: 2264-2275
        • Renshaw S
        • Silva IL
        • Hotouras A
        • Wexner SD
        • Murphy J
        • Bhan C
        Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of robotic colorectal resections for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic literature review.
        Tech Coloproctol. 2018; 22: 161-177
        • Giordano S
        • Victorzon M
        Laparoscopic roux-en-y gastric bypass in elderly patients (60 years or older): a meta-analysis of comparative studies.
        Scand J Surg. 2018; 107: 6-13
        • Behbehani S
        • Suarez-Salvador E
        • Buras M
        • Magtibay P
        • Magrina J
        Mortality rates in laparoscopic and robotic gynecologic oncology surgery- a systemic review and meta-analysis.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 26: 1253-1267.e4
        • Soto E
        • Luu TH
        • Liu X
        • et al.
        Laparoscopy vs. Robotic Surgery for Endometriosis (LAROSE): a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.
        Fertil Steril. 2017; 107 (996–1002.e3)
        • Johnson L
        • Bunn WD
        • Nguyen L
        • Rice J
        • Raj M
        • Cunningham MJ
        Clinical comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy procedures for endometrial cancer patients.
        J Robot Surg. 2017; 11: 291-297
        • Mahdi H
        • Jernigan AM
        • Aljebori Q
        • Lockhart D
        • Moslemi-Kebria M
        The impact of obesity on the 30-day morbidity and mortality after surgery for endometrial cancer.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22: 94-102
        • Wallace SK
        • Fazzari MJ
        • Chen H
        • Cliby WA
        • Chalas E
        Outcomes and postoperative complications after hysterectomies performed for benign compared with malignant indications.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128: 467-475
        • Park SH
        • Lee JY
        • Nam EJ
        • Kim S
        • Kim SW
        • Kim YT
        Prediction of perioperative complications after robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer using the modified surgical Apgar score.
        BMC Cancer. 2018; 18: 908
        • Lavelle ES
        • Giugale LE
        • Winger DG
        • Wang L
        • Carter-Brooks CM
        • Shepherd JP
        Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218 (116.e1–116.e5)
        • McIsaac DI
        • Bryson GL
        • van Walraven C
        Association of frailty and 1-year postoperative mortality following major elective noncardiac surgery: a population-based cohort study.
        JAMA Surg. 2016; 151: 538-545
        • Kazaure HS
        • Roman SA
        • Rosenthal RA
        • Sosa JA
        Cardiac arrest among surgical patients: an analysis of incidence, patient characteristics, and outcomes in ACS-NSQIP.
        JAMA Surg. 2013; 148: 14-21
        • Ayaz A
        • Emam S
        • Farooq MU
        Clinical course of ectopic pregnancy: a single-center experience.
        J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013; 6: 70-73
        • Vij P
        • Cherian TK
        Ruptured ectopic pregnancy and routine ‘Laparoscopic Management’ in shockÖ.shocking?.
        Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: i361-i366
        • Lawson G
        Gynaecological laparoscopy deaths in Australia.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 55: 477-481
        • Llarena NC
        • Shah AB
        • Milad MP
        Bowel injury in gynecologic laparoscopy: a systematic review.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125: 1407-1417
        • Wechter ME
        • Mohd J
        • Magrina JF
        • et al.
        Complications in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery according to case type: a 6-year retrospective cohort study using Clavien-Dindo classification.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21: 844-850
        • Abaunza H
        • Romero K
        Elements for adequate informed consent in the surgical context.
        World J Surg. 2014; 38: 1594-1604
        • Kortram K
        • Lafranca JA
        • IJzermans JN
        • Dor FJ
        The need for a standardized informed consent procedure in live donor nephrectomy: a systematic review.
        Transplantation. 2014; 98: 1134-1143
        • Augusto KL
        • Brilhante AVM
        • Modesto GCD
        • et al.
        Costs and mortality rates of surgical approaches to hysterectomy in Brazil.
        Rev Saude Publica. 2018; 52: 25
        • Germain A
        • Thibault F
        • Galifet M
        • et al.
        Long-term outcomes after totally robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
        Surg Endosc. 2013; 27: 525-529
        • King SW
        • Jefferis H
        • Jackson S
        • Marfin AG
        • Price N
        Laparoscopic uterovaginal prolapse surgery in the elderly: feasibility and outcomes.
        Gynecol Surg. 2017; 14: 2
        • Ruffo G
        • Stepniewska A
        • Crippa S
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic ileocecal resection for bowel endometriosis.
        Surg Endosc. 2011; 25: 1257-1262
        • Angioli R
        • Terranova C
        • De Cicco Nardone C
        • et al.
        A comparison of three different entry techniques in gynecological laparoscopic surgery: a randomized prospective trial.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013; 171: 339-342
        • Mahdi H
        • Goodrich S
        • Lockhart D
        • DeBernardo R
        • Moslemi-Kebria M
        Predictors of surgical site infection in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease: a multicenter analysis using the national surgical quality improvement program data.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21: 901-909
        • Obinata D
        • Sugihara T
        • Yasunaga H
        • et al.
        Tension-free vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: analysis of perioperative outcomes using a Japanese national inpatient database.
        Int J Urol. 2018; 25: 655-659
        • Ikechebelu JI
        Experience with diagnostic laparoscopy for gynecological indications.
        Niger J Clin Pract. 2013; 16: 155-158
        • Jayot A
        • Nyangoh Timoh K
        • Bendifallah S
        • Ballester M
        • Darai E
        Comparison of laparoscopic discoid resection and segmental resection for colorectal endometriosis using a propensity score matching analysis.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018; 25: 440-446
        • Louie M
        • Strassle PD
        • Moulder JK
        • Dizon AM
        • Schiff LD
        • Carey ET
        Uterine weight and complications after abdominal, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219 (480.e1–480.e8)
        • Martín Del Olmo JC
        • Toledano M
        • Martín Esteban ML
        • et al.
        Outcomes of laparoscopic management of multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse.
        Surg Endosc. 2019; 33: 1075-1079
        • Park SH
        • Park MI
        • Choi JS
        • Lee JH
        • Kim HO
        • Kim H
        Laparoscopic appendectomy performed during pregnancy by gynecological laparoscopists.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010; 148: 44-48
        • Sagar PM
        • Thekkinkattil DK
        • Heath RM
        • Woodfield J
        • Gonsalves S
        • Landon CR
        Feasibility and functional outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolporectopexy for combined vaginal and rectal prolapse.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2008; 51: 1414-1420
        • Trivedi P
        • D'Costa S
        • Shirkande P
        • Wahi M
        • Kumar S
        Do new vessel sealing devices and harmonic ace increase ureteric injury in total laparoscopic hysterectomy?.
        J Gynecol Endosc Surg. 2009; 1: 83-88
        • Krause AK
        • Muntz HG
        • McGonigle KF
        Robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery and perioperative morbidity in elderly women.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23: 949-953
        • Wright JD
        • Ananth CV
        • Lewin SN
        • et al.
        Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease.
        JAMA. 2013; 309: 689-698
        • Gómez García MT
        • Fuentes Rozalén AM
        • López del Cerro E
        • et al.
        Analysis of mortality associated with gynecological surgery between 2000 and 2010 at the General Hospital of Albacete, Spain.
        J Gynecol Surg. 2016; 32: 43-50
        • Price N
        • Slack A
        • Jackson SR
        Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: an observational study of functional and anatomical outcomes.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2011; 22: 77-82
        • Wiser A
        • Holcroft CA
        • Tulandi T
        • Abenhaim HA
        Abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign diseases: evaluation of morbidity and mortality among 465,798 cases.
        Gynecol Surg. 2013; 10: 117-122