Robot-Assisted Surgery for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes

Background: Robot-assisted surgery is used for invasive cervical cancer but pooled minimally invasive evidence does not isolate the robotic platform’s outcomes.

Objective: To synthesize perioperative, pathologic, oncologic, and recovery outcomes reported after robot-assisted surgery for invasive cervical cancer.

Methods: Clinical studies (2011–2026) reporting separable robotic outcomes were eligible. PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and LILACS exports were screened according to PRISMA 2020. Case reports, reviews, meta-analyses, protocols without results, and studies lacking separable robotic data were excluded. One reviewer assessed risk of bias with design-specific Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools and evidence certainty with GRADE. Of 270 records, 5 duplicates were removed; 265 were screened, 58 full texts assessed, and 24 nonrandomized studies included after 34 full-text exclusions. Counts are reconstructed from supplied exports, not historical database yields. Synthesis was narrative, without meta-analysis.

Results: The 24 studies (2013–2025) were comparative cohorts or single-arm investigations. Some reported lower blood loss or shorter hospitalization; operative time, complications, lymph-node yield, and survival varied. Certainty was low for comparative blood loss and length of stay and very low for complications, pathologic and oncologic outcomes, recovery, and feasibility.

Conclusion: Evidence suggests possible perioperative benefits but does not establish oncologic equivalence or superiority over open surgery. Outcomes from studies combining robotic and conventional laparoscopy cannot be attributed to the robotic platform.