Assessing the role of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery in patients with a diagnosis of endometriosis: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of endometriosis can be carried out with the traditional standard laparoscopic technique or the robotic surgery technique; however, it is not clear if there is a significant difference between techniques. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the impact of robotic and standard laparoscopic techniques in endometriosis regarding the clinical outcome. METHODS: Studies comparing robotic surgery to laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis were among the studies from various languages that met the inclusion criteria. Using dichotomous and continuous random-effect models, the results of these investigations (surgery time, hospitalization time, blood loss, complications, and conversion rate) were examined, and the mean difference with 95% confidence intervals was computed. RESULTS: Eight studies from 2013 to 2022 were selected for the current analysis including 1741 patients with endometriosis. The studied data revealed a statistically significant (P = .01) lower operation time related to laparoscopic surgery compared with the robotic technique. In addition, the hospitalization time of laparoscopic surgery is significantly (P = .03) lower than that of robotic surgery. On the other hand, blood loss, rehospitalization, postoperative and intraoperative complications, and conversion rates were not significantly different between both techniques. Heterogeneity values were variable according to the analysis factor, from 0% to 91%. CONCLUSION: Both robotic and standard laparoscopic techniques have similar outcomes regarding blood loss, rehospitalization, conversion rate, and rate of complication. However, the substantial difference between techniques was in favor of standard laparoscopic surgery regarding operation and hospitalization time.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Chinese Patent Medicines for Cervical High-risk Human Papillomavirus Infection: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.

Background: Many Chinese patent medicines have been reported to show anti-tumor cell effects on cervical cancer. To estimate the comparative effectiveness and safety of Chinese patent medicines for cervical high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese patent medicines for HR-HPV infection were searched in eight databases until 31 August 2022, and two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes concerning efficacy were evaluated as odds ratio (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) utilizing R 4.1.2 and Stata 16.1. The protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022351120). Results: We ultimately identified 60 RCTs that involved 5,951 participants and 8 interventions. Chinese patent medicines combined with recombinant human interferon (rhIFN) have better treatment effects than rhIFN alone. The results showed that Baofukang suppository (BFK) combined with rhIFN is greater for the rate of HR-HPV clearance follow-up at 6 months (SUCRA = 78.16%). Kushen gel (KS) combined with rhIFN ranked first for the rate of HR-HPV clearance after treatment (SUCRA = 90.77%). Furthermore, KS + rhIFN is most likely to be the best intervention for improving the clinical effectiveness rate (SUCRA = 87.39%). Adverse reactions were not statistically significant in BFK + rhIFN versus BFK, BFK + rhIFN versus rhIFN, and BFK versus rhIFN. Conclusion: The combination of Chinese patent medicines with rhIFN may demonstrate a higher efficacy than rhIFN alone in clearing the virus and improving cervical symptoms. Weighing with the clinical comprehensive efficacy, BFK + rhIFN and KS + rhIFN maybe the optimal treatments for cervical HR-HPV infection. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed in the future to further confirm the efficacy and safety of proprietary Chinese medicines for cervical HR-HPV infection.

Chinese patent medicines combined with hormone replacement therapy for premature ovarian failure: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy differences between Chinese patent medicines combined with hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in the treatment of premature ovarian failure (POF) by the Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) method. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting Chinese patent medicine combined with HRT for POF included Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database (Wanfang), VIP Database (VIP), and China Biology Medicine Database (CBM) from the inception of the databases to July 2022. Two researchers independently screened the articles, extracted data, and evaluated the quality. The literature that met the inclusion criteria was screened out, the quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed according to the Cochrane 5.1 manual and RevMan 5.4, and NMA was performed using Stata 15.0 and R software. Results: Sixty-four RCTs involving 5,675 individuals containing 12 oral Chinese patent medicines combined with HRT were enrolled into the current NMA. The results showed that when compared with patients using only HRT, the total clinical response rate is greater in patients using HRT combined with one of these 12 oral Chinese patent medicines. Among them, Zuogui pills + HRT [odds ratio (OR) = 3.92; 95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.86, 23.84; SUCRA = 73.76%] is most likely to be the best intervention, and the suboptimal intervention is Guishen pills + HRT (OR = 3.22, 95% CrI = 1.16, 9.44, SUCRA = 70.60%). Conclusion: Chinese patent medicines combined with HRT were more effective than HRT alone in the treatment of POF. Zuogui pills are good at decreasing follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) and more effective in the improvement of total clinical response rate; Xuefu Zhuyu capsule is also good at decreasing FSH. Ziheche capsule is an expert in improving estradiol level; Kuntai capsule shows the lowest incidence of adverse reactions. However, the quality of the literature included in this study is relatively low, so it may affect the results of the study. Therefore, higher quality and multi-center trial would be necessary for supporting these results. Systematic review registration: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD42022350587].