Scholarlink

Background <p>Robotic-assisted gynecologic (RAS) surgery offers enhanced precision, ergonomics, and visualization compared with open (OP) and laparoscopic (LAP) approaches. However, it introduces distinct anesthetic challenges related to patient positioning, airway access, and postoperative recovery and analgesia. This review aims to evaluate perioperative outcomes across four domains: intraoperative anesthetic management, postoperative recovery, pain control strategies, and surgical performance.</p> Methods <p>We performed a systematic review of the current literature on adult women undergoing robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery under general anesthesia. Data on perioperative outcomes across the aforementioned domains were extracted via standardized selection, extraction, and bias assessment methods.</p> Results <p>A total of 479 papers were included in the study following screening of over 10,000 citations. Intraoperatively, airway complications were infrequently reported; however, a few cases of increased pulmonary pressures and hypercapnia emerged. Postoperatively, RAS was associated with shorter hospital stay (mean 2.52&#xa0;days RAS vs. 1.85 LAP vs. 5.11 OP) and faster return to daily activities (mean 11.4&#xa0;days RAS vs. 13.6 LAP vs. 13.2 OP), but evidence for validated quality of recovery scores was lacking. Pain intensity and analgesic requirements were found to be lower after RAS than after OP and sometimes LAP, with inconsistent findings across studies. Surgical outcomes favored RAS, showing reduced blood loss (mean 154&#xa0;mL RAS vs. 149 LAP vs. 358 OP), lower conversion and major complications rates than other approaches. Oncologic metrics—including lymph node yield and R0 resection—were comparable across approaches.</p> <p>Overall study quality was limited by a moderate to serious risk of bias across most outcomes.</p> Conclusion <p>Robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery is a feasible and safe alternative to laparoscopic and open approaches, with advantages in selected surgical outcomes and potential benefits in postoperative pain and recovery. However, further high-quality randomized studies are needed to confirm these benefits.</p> Systematic review registration <p>PROSPERO CRD420251105240</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Perioperative outcomes and anesthetic challenges of robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery: a systematic review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月16日

查看全文
  • Elena Ioppolo,
  • Giulia Tinti,
  • Davide Cucina,
  • Stella Granato,
  • Michela Caramella,
  • Irene Sironi,
  • Francesco Baccoli,
  • Thea Pagani,
  • Leonardo Nelva Stellio,
  • Federico Spelzini,
  • Vito Torrano

摘要

Background

Robotic-assisted gynecologic (RAS) surgery offers enhanced precision, ergonomics, and visualization compared with open (OP) and laparoscopic (LAP) approaches. However, it introduces distinct anesthetic challenges related to patient positioning, airway access, and postoperative recovery and analgesia. This review aims to evaluate perioperative outcomes across four domains: intraoperative anesthetic management, postoperative recovery, pain control strategies, and surgical performance.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of the current literature on adult women undergoing robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery under general anesthesia. Data on perioperative outcomes across the aforementioned domains were extracted via standardized selection, extraction, and bias assessment methods.

Results

A total of 479 papers were included in the study following screening of over 10,000 citations. Intraoperatively, airway complications were infrequently reported; however, a few cases of increased pulmonary pressures and hypercapnia emerged. Postoperatively, RAS was associated with shorter hospital stay (mean 2.52 days RAS vs. 1.85 LAP vs. 5.11 OP) and faster return to daily activities (mean 11.4 days RAS vs. 13.6 LAP vs. 13.2 OP), but evidence for validated quality of recovery scores was lacking. Pain intensity and analgesic requirements were found to be lower after RAS than after OP and sometimes LAP, with inconsistent findings across studies. Surgical outcomes favored RAS, showing reduced blood loss (mean 154 mL RAS vs. 149 LAP vs. 358 OP), lower conversion and major complications rates than other approaches. Oncologic metrics—including lymph node yield and R0 resection—were comparable across approaches.

Overall study quality was limited by a moderate to serious risk of bias across most outcomes.

Conclusion

Robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery is a feasible and safe alternative to laparoscopic and open approaches, with advantages in selected surgical outcomes and potential benefits in postoperative pain and recovery. However, further high-quality randomized studies are needed to confirm these benefits.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD420251105240