[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-382234-105":59,"doc-detail-382234-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","application-of-robotic-surgery-and-traditional-laparoscopic-surgery-in-lymph-node-dissection-for-gynecological-cancer-a-meta-analysis","Application of robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery in lymph node dissection for gynecological cancer: A meta-analysis","","Evidence-based medicine was used to compare robotic surgery with traditional laparoscopic surgery for lymph node dissection in gynecological cancer. Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang were searched up to January 2021, including cohort studies and randomized controlled trials; animal studies, reviews, and studies lacking full text or extractable data were excluded. STATA 15.1 analyzed outcomes. Robotic surgery increased pelvic and para-aortic lymph node retrieval and reduced blood loss. No significant difference was found for operating time, recurrence rate, or mortality rate.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/application-of-robotic-surgery-and-traditional-laparoscopic-surgery-in-lymph-node-dissection-for-gynecological-cancer-a-meta-analysis/382234/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/application-of-robotic-surgery-and-traditional-laparoscopic-surgery-in-lymph-node-dissection-for-gynecological-cancer-a-meta-analysis/382234.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Emma Wilson","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-24",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What was the main purpose of this meta-analysis?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"To assess differences in the number of lymph nodes retrieved between robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery in gynecological cancer and inform clinical treatment decisions.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Which databases and study types were included?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang were searched, including cohort studies and randomized controlled trials involving robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What key outcomes differed between the two surgical methods?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"Robotic surgery significantly increased pelvic and para-aortic lymph node retrieval and significantly reduced blood loss; operating time, recurrence rate, and mortality rate showed no statistically significant differences.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},382234,1790467515,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":52,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},3848291630094,"https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","ONCOLOGY LETTERS 25: 175, 2023  \nApplication of robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery in lymph node dissection for gynecological cancer: A meta‑analysis  \nYUANYUAN LU, JINGPING CHEN, RENJI WEI, WENTING LIN, YUDONG CHEN, YICHENG SU, LIJUAN LIU, YUKUN LIANG and MULAN WEI  \nDepartment of Gynecology, Guigang People's Hospital, Guigang, Guangxi 537100, P.R. China Received October 7, 2022; Accepted January 30, 2023  \nDOI: 10. 3892/ol.2023.13761  \nAbstract. Since the advantages of robotic surgery and lapa‑ roscopic surgery in the number of lymph node resections are not well understood, this meta‑analysis used evidence‑based medicine to assess the difference in the number of lymph nodes retrieved in gynecological cancer between the two surgical methods to guide clinical treatment. In the present meta‑analysis, the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang libraries were searched for articles that were published from the time of the database's inception to January 2021, including cohort studies and randomized controlled trials, where the observa‑ tion group underwent robotic surgery to treat gynecological cancers and the control group underwent laparoscopic surgery to treat gynecological cancers, including cervical and ovarian cancers and endometrial cancers . Duplicate publications, studies with no full text, incomplete information or where the authors were unable to perform data extraction, animal experi‑ ments, reviews and systematic reviews were excluded. STATA 15.1 was used to analyze the data. Robotic surgery resulted ina significant increase in the number of lymph nodes retrieved from the pelvis [standard mean difference (SMD)=0.24; 95% CI, 0.04‑0.45; P=0.007] and para‑aortic (SMD=0.41; 95% CI, 0.13‑0.69; P=0.004) regions compared with the number retrieved by laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in operating time between robotic and laparoscopic surgery, despite the use of different instru‑ ments (SMD=0 . 12; 95% CI, ‑0.35‑0. 58; P=0 . 616) . The amount of blood lost during robotic surgery was significantly less compared with that lost during laparoscopic surgery [SMD=‑0.40; 95% CI, ‑0.58‑(‑0.22); P\u003C0.001] . The present  \nCorrespondence to: Dr Yuanyuan Lu, Department of Gynecology, Guigang People's Hospital, 1 Zhongshan Road, Gangbei Square, Guigang, Guangxi 537100, P.R. China  \nE‑mail: luyuanyuan‑[009@163.com](009@163.com)  \nKey words: robotic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, lymph node dissection, gynecological cancer  \nstudy evaluated cancer recurrence and death in further detail, and no statistically significant difference was demonstrated between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery in terms of recurrence rate [odds ratio (OR)=0 . 59; 95% CI, 0.21‑1.65; P=0.318] and mortality rate (OR=0.31; 95% CI, 0.08‑1.30; P=0.109). The present study demonstrated that robotic surgery was able to retrieve more pelvic and para‑aortic lymph nodes than traditional laparoscopic surgery, which was consistent with previous reports. With regards to blood loss, The differ‑ ence in operation time between the two surgical methods was not statistically significant, whereas the estimated blood loss of robotic surgery was significantly lower than that of traditional laparoscopic surgery. There was no statistically significant difference in the recurrence rate and mortality rate of the two surgical modality.  \nIntroduction  \nGynecological malignancies are the leading cause of female mortality in the United States (1) . Despite advancements in the identification and treatment of gynecological malignan‑ cies, the survival rate has remained constant for decades (2) . Gynecological cancers predominately comprise cervical, endometrial and ovarian cancers (3) . Surgical care for these malignancies has transformed during the past decade as a result of the development of techniques that are less invasive such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries.  \nAs a result of the US Fed","cbCaidPg8B18RIVc","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidPg8B18RIVc","pdf",2715355,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n# Materials and methods","[{\"question\":\"What was the main purpose of this meta-analysis?\",\"answer\":\"To assess differences in the number of lymph nodes retrieved between robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery in gynecological cancer and inform clinical treatment decisions.\"},{\"question\":\"Which databases and study types were included?\",\"answer\":\"Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang were searched, including cohort studies and randomized controlled trials involving robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery.\"},{\"question\":\"What key outcomes differed between the two surgical methods?\",\"answer\":\"Robotic surgery significantly increased pelvic and para-aortic lymph node retrieval and significantly reduced blood loss; operating time, recurrence rate, and mortality rate showed no statistically significant differences.\"}]","Application of robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery in lymph node dissection for gynecological cancer: A meta-analysis | PDF",1790249618,25]