Comparative Analysis of Robotic-Assisted Surgery Versus Traditional Surgery in the Treatment of Endometriosis: A Narrative Review

Abstract Background: Endometriosis is a prevalent gynecological condition among women that causes infertility, severe pain, and reduces quality of life. Despite the rapid growth in the use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for various medical specialties, little is known about its effectiveness compared to traditional human-performed surgery for endometriosis treatment. This narrative review aims to compare the effectiveness of RAS compared to conventional surgery in improving various patient outcomes in endometriosis treatment. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies were searched on PubMed and Web of Science in November 2024. Studies were eligible if they compared the effectiveness of RAS and conventional surgical procedures for endometriosis treatment for improving various patient outcomes. Results: Only one RCT has been conducted on this subject matter, and there is one ongoing RCT that is anticipated to be completed by 2026. The only RCT published so far reported three outcomes, namely condition-specific quality of life, operative time, and complications (and blood loss and conversion rates to laparotomy). The RCT revealed that both RAS and conventional surgery improved quality of life, but there were no significant differences between them. Observational cohort studies have not so far reported on quality of life as a clinically important outcome. Also, no significant differences were noted regarding complications, blood loss, and conversion rates to laparotomy, which is consistent with meta-analyses of observational cohort studies. However, although the RCT reported no significant differences between the two arms regarding operative time, all the meta-analyses of observational studies revealed that RAS was significantly inferior to conventional surgery in this outcome. Even so, the RCT noted that the operative time for RAS was relatively longer than conventional surgery, although not statistically significant. Conclusion: This narrative review identified significant literature gaps, namely, no RCT reporting on pain as a clinically important outcome. Also, the currently available RCT is of moderate quality due to double-blinding concerns. Generally, RAS does not offer any outstanding advantages compared to conventional surgery, but it can be considered a safe and effective alternative.