RETRACTED: Effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on postoperative wound infection in patients with cervical...

The objective of this research is to evaluate the risk of postoperative infection and other risks associated with robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). Recent studies on RRH versus LRH have not been conclusive for cervical carcinoma. Our group attempted to use meta-analyses to evaluate the effects of both RRH and LRH on postoperative outcomes in order to make sure that the best operative method was used to prevent wound infections. We looked up Cochrane Library and published databases for this research and found 594 findings. Articles were screened by title and abstract and then carefully examined for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction was performed independently by two researchers. Comparison studies were used to describe the incidence of wound complications after surgery. The publication bias was assessed using Egger regression correlation analysis. There were six trials eligible for inclusion, of which 491 RRH and 807 LRH. Depending on surgery for cervical carcinoma, it is true that there is a difference in the way that surgery affects the postoperative complications. Our analysis demonstrated that the use of robotic operation can decrease the amount of blood loss during operation as compared with routine laparoscopy (MD, -77.69; 95% CI, -132.08, -23.30; p = 0.005). However, there were no statistical differences in the incidence of postoperative wound infections (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.25, 1.19; p = 0.13) and intraoperative operative time (MD, 13.01; 95% CI, -41.38, 67.41; p = 0.64) among the two procedures. There was no statistically significant difference between these two groups of patients with severe postoperative complications. Unlike other research, the findings of this meta-analysis are not consistent with the findings of the present study, which suggest that robotic operations cannot lower the rate of postoperative wound infections. However, because of the limitations and the retrospective character of the trials covered, these findings should be interpreted with care and more extensive research is required.