A systematic review of robotic breast surgery versus open surgery

AbstractRobotic-assisted breast surgery (RABS) is controversial. We systematically reviewed the evidence about RABS, comparing it to open conventional breast surgery (CBS). Following prospective registration (osf.io/97ewt), a search was performed in January 2023, without time or language restrictions, through bibliographic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Trip database and CDSR) and grey literature. Quality was assessed in duplicate using Qualsyst criteria (score range 0.0 –1.0); reviewer agreement was 98%. The 16 selected studies (total patients: 334,804) had overall high quality (mean score 0.82; range 0.68–0.91). Nine of 16 (56.3%) were cohort studies, 2/16 (12.5%) RCTs, and 5/16 (31.3%) case–control studies. Takingp <  0.05 as the significance threshold, RABS versus CBS was better in aesthetic results and patient satisfaction (10/11 studies; 90%), was surgically costly (4/4 studies; 100%), time-consuming (9/13 studies; 69%), and less painful in the first 6–24 h (2/2 studies; 100%) and without statistically s ignificant differences in complication rates (10/12 studies; 83%) or short-term oncological outcomes (10/10 studies; 100%). Surgical time could be dramatically reduced by training surgical teams, reaching no significant differences between approaches (p = 0.120). RABS was shown to be feasible and safe. The advantages of RABS and long-term outcomes need further research.
Source: Journal of Robotic Surgery - Category: Surgery Source Type: research