目的：快速评估达芬奇机器人系统（Da Vinci surgical system， DVSS）用于妇科手术的有效性、安全 性和经济性，为决策者提供决策证据。方法：计算机检索 PubMed、EMbase、CNKI 等数据库。由 2 位评价者根据纳 入与排除标准独立筛选文献、提取资料和评价质量后行描述性分析。结果：纳入 28 篇涉及妇科恶性肿瘤及部分良 性妇科疾病手术文献，包括 22 篇系统评价/Meta 分析以及 6 篇经济性分析的研究。结果显示，达芬奇手术系统针对 不同疾病的临床有效性和安全性结果有所差异。与传统开放手术方法相比，达芬奇手术系统虽延长了手术时间，但 可缩短住院时间，并降低手术过程中的转换率、失血量和输血率；与传统腹腔镜手术相比，达芬奇手术系统可缩短 住院时间，降低手术过程中的转换率、失血量和输血率。结论：达芬奇机器人手术系统在安全性和有效性上优于传 统开放手术，但目前仍缺少证据证明达芬奇机器人手术系统比腹腔镜手术更具优越性，不过机器人手术在缩短住院 时间方面可能会降低住院费用，这是机器人手术的潜在经济性。 

    Objective: To rapidly evaluate the effectiveness, safety and economical efficiency of Da Vinci surgical system (DVSS) in gynecological surgery, so to provide evidence for decision-makers. Methods: PubMed, EMbase, CNKI and other well-known databases were searched systematically. A descriptive analysis was made after independently screening literatures, extracting data and quality assessment by two reviewers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: A total of 28 surgical literatures about gynecological malignant tumors and benign gynecological diseases were included. 22 of the 28 literatures are systematic reviews/Meta analysis and 6 studies are economic analyses. The results show that the clinical efficacy and safety of Da Vinci surgical system are various for different gynecological diseases. Compared with the traditional open surgery, even Da Vinci surgical system has a longer operation time, it can reduce blood loss, decrease conversion rate and blood transfusion rate. Compared with the traditional laparoscopic surgery, Da Vinci robot-assisted surgery has a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, lower conversion rate and blood transfusion rate. Conclusion: Da Vinci surgical system is superior to traditional open surgery in safety and effectiveness, but no evidence proves that Da Vinci robot-assisted is superior to laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery may reduce hospitalization costs in terms of shortening hospital stay, which can be the economical part in the future.

收稿日期：2020-06-22  录用日期：2020-10-16 

Received Date: 2020-06-22  Accepted Date: 2020-10-16 

基金项目：上海市第四轮“公共卫生三年行动计划”重点学科建设项目（循证公共卫生与卫生经济学：No.15GWZK0901） 

Foundation Item: The Fourth Round of the Three Year Action Plan on Public Health Discipline and Talent Program (Evidence-based public health and health economics, No.15GWZK0901) 

通讯作者：王育，Email：renjiwangyu@126.com 

Corresponding Author: WANG Yu,  Email:  renjiwangyu@126. com 

引用格式：郎驿天，吴斌，王育 . 达芬奇机器人用于妇科手术的技术评价 [J]. 机器人外科学杂志，2021，2（2）：100-110. 

Citation: LANG Y T,  WU B,  WANG Y.  Technical evaluation on Da Vinci robot-assisted gynecological surgery [J].  Chinese Journal of Robotic Surgery,  2021, 2(2):100-110.

[1] ZHOU J, XIONG B H, MA L, et al. Robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis[J]. Int J Med Robot, 2016, 12(1): 145-154. 

[2] ZHANG S S, DING T, CUI Z H, et al. Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: A separate metaanalysis of high-quality studies[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2019, 98(4): e14171. 

[3] SHI C, GAO Y, YANG Y, et al. Comparison of efficacy of robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in the treatment of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2019, 17(1): 162. 

[4] Rizou N, Moris D, Pikoulis E, et al. Minimally invasive lymphadenectomy in uterine cervical cancer: A systematic review[J]. Anticancer Res, 2017, 37(1): 335- 342. 

[5] Reza M, Maeso S, Blasco J A, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery[J]. Br J Surg, 2010, 97(12): 1772-1783. 

[6] RAN L, JIN J, XU Y, et al. Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(9): e108361. 

[7] Prodromidou A, Spartalis E, Tsourouflis G, et al. Robotic versus laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Robot Surg, 2020. DOI: 10. 1007/s11701-020-01042-1. 

[8] Park D A, Yun J E, Kim S W, et al. Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2017, 43(6): 994- 1002. 

[9] Park D A, Lee D H, Kim S W, et al. Comparative safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2016, 42(9): 1303-1314. 

[10] LIU Z, LI X, TIAN S, et al. Superiority of robotic surgery for cervical cancer in comparison with traditional approaches: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Int J Surg, 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.062. 

[11] JIN Y M, LIU S S, CHEN J, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(3): e0193033. 

[12] Ind T, Laios A, Hacking M, et al. A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Int J Med Robot, 2017, 13(4): e1851. 

[13] CHEN S H, L I Z A, HUANG R, et al. Robotassisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer staging: A meta-analysis[J]. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 55(4): 488-494. 

[14] Albright B B, Witte T, Tofte A N, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized Trials[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2016, 23(1): 18- 27. 

[15] Tapper A M, Hannola M, Zeitlin R, et al. A systematic review and cost analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy in malignant and benign conditions[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2014. DOI:10.1016/ j.ejogrb.2014.03.010. 

[16] XIE W, CAO D, YANG J, et al. Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis[J]. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 2016, 142(10): 2173-2183. 

[17] Shazly S A, Murad M H, Dowdy S C, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2015, 138(2): 457-471. 

[18] Nevis I F, Vali B, Higgins C, et al. Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancers: a systematic review[J]. J Robot Surg, 2017, 11(1): 1-16. 

[19] Gala R B, Margulies R, Steinberg A, et al. Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2014, 21(3): 353-361. 

[20] 冉林灵 , 肖琳 . 达芬奇机器人与传统腹腔镜手术 治疗宫颈癌的 meta 分析 [J]. 现代医药卫生 , 2018, 34(22): 3520-3525. 

[21] 王卫杰 , 高玲玲 , 徐建波 , 等 . 达芬奇机器人手术 系统与腹腔镜手术在子宫内膜癌全面分期手术中 安全性和有效性的 Meta 分析 [J]. 中华妇幼临床医 学杂志 ( 电子版 ), 2018, 14(3): 296-304. 

[22] 李文 , 郎凯楠 , 李静 , 等 . 达芬奇机器人在早期卵 巢癌手术中安全性和近期疗效的 meta 分析 [J]. 郑 州大学学报 ( 医学版 ), 2018, 53(6): 811-816. 

[23] Wright J D, Kostolias A, Ananth C V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotically assisted compared with laparoscopic adnexal surgery for benign gynecologic disease[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2014, 124(5): 886-896. 

[24] Wright J D, Burke W M, Wilde E T, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2012, 30(8): 783-791. 

[25] Pellegrino A, Damiani G R, Fachechi G, et al. Cost analysis of minimally invasive hysterectomy vs open approach performed by a single surgeon in an Italian center[J]. J Robot Surg, 2017, 11(2): 115-121. 

[26] Martínez-Maestre M A, Melero-Cortes L M, Coronado P J, et al. Long term COST-minimization analysis of robotassisted hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy[J]. Health Econ Rev, 2019, 9(1): 18. 

[27] Marino P, Houvenaeghel G, Narducci F, et al. Costeffectiveness of conventional vs robotic-assisted laparoscopy in gynecologic oncologic indications[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2015, 25(6): 1102-1108. 

[28] Leitao M M Jr, Bartashnik A, Wagner I, et al. Costeffectiveness analysis of robotically assisted laparoscopy for newly diagnosed uterine cancers[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2014, 123(5): 1031-1037.