Skip to main content
. 2023 Oct 19;17(6):2647–2662. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01724-6

Table 2.

Baseline patient characteristics

Meta-analysis Heterogeneity
Outcome # Studies Robot n Comparator n Effect size [95% CI] p-value Model I2 p-value
Robotic vs. Laparoscopic
 Age (year) 14 56,406 190,162 MD: 0.95 [0.18, 1.71] 0.01 RE 98%  < 0.00001
 BMI 8 1715 1803 MD: 0.25 [– 0.64, 1.14] 0.58 RE 67% 0.003
 Uterine weight (g) 6 1579 802 MD: – 23.6 [– 33.45, – 13.91]  < 0.0001 FE 0% 0.88
 # Large uterus 3 2842 18,362 OR: 1.10 [1.00, 1.22] 0.06 FE 30% 0.24
 Prior surgery 7 2623 3214 OR: 0.97 [0.74, 1.25] 0.79 RE 61% 0.02
Robotic vs. Open
 Age 7 71,887 554,020 MD: 0.77 [0.20, 1.33] 0.008 RE 99%  < 0.00001
 BMI 2 84 94 MD: – 1.14 [– 5.05, 2.77] 0.57 RE 91% 0.0007
 # Large uterus 2 3315 17,230 OR: 1.47 [0.14, 15.45] 0.75 RE 100%  < 0.00001
 Prior surgery 2 84 94 OR: 0.37 [0.03, 5.39] 0.47 RE 81% 0.02
Robotic vs. Vaginal
 Age (year) 6 71,863 192,719 MD: – 1.74 [– 3.64, 0.16] 0.07 RE 100%  < 0.00001
 Uterine weight (g) 3 1459 420 MD: 0.70 [– 126.49, 127.90] 0.99 RE 99%  < 0.00001
 # Large uterus 2 3315 11,888 OR: 1.87 [1.13, 3.11] 0.02 RE 95%  < 0.00001
 Prior surgery 2 1075 3801 OR: 1.79 [1.56, 2.05]  < 0.00001 FE 0% 0.75

CI confidence interval, MD mean difference, BMI body mass index, OR odds ratio, RD risk difference, RE random effects model, FE fixed effects model

Bolding indicates significance (p < 0.05)