Infectious complications of laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Marra AR, Puig-Asensio M, Edmond MB, Schweizer ML, Bender D. Infectious complications of laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society. 2019 Mar 1; 29(3):518-530.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 11-215 – Comparative Effectiveness of Strategies to Control S. aureus Infections

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the infectious complications of hysterectomy, comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, and EMBASE through July 2018 for studies evaluating robotic-assisted hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy, and infectious complications. We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled OR estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. Pooled ORs were calculated separately based on the reason for hysterectomy (eg, benign uterine diseases, endometrial cancer, and cervical cancer). RESULTS: Fifty studies were included in the final review for the meta-analysis with 176?016 patients undergoing hysterectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infectious complication events between robotic-assisted hysterectomy and laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.74 to 1.28). When we performed a stratified analysis, similar results were found with no statistically significant difference in infectious complications comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy among patients with benign uterine disease (pooled OR 1.10; 95 % CI 0.70 to 1.73), endometrial cancer (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.55 to 1.73), or cervical cancer (pooled OR 1.09; 95 % CI 0.60 to 1.97). CONCLUSION: In our meta-analysis the rate of infectious complications associated with robotic-assisted hysterectomy was no different than that associated with conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy.