Background Since the rise of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the 1990s, the benefits of laparoscopy compared to laparotomy have been clearly recognized: lower postoperative pain, faster recovery of normal bowel function, shorter hospitalization, lower estimated blood depletion, aesthetic scars and more. The introduction of laparoscopy in gynecological cancers has shown the same benefits with similar oncologic outcomes. Method This systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted following PRISMA guidelines and employing the PICO format, aim to explore about speech delay in children in middle income countries, focusing on etiology and risk factor. Inclusion criteria encompass diverse study designs (RCTs, observational, quasi-experimental, and case-control studies) investigating comparison of outcome, quality of life and complications post operative laparoscopy versus laparotomy for gynaecology cancer, while exclusion criteria filter out studies lacking relevance to comparison of outcome, quality of life and complications post operative laparoscopy versus laparotomy for gynaecology cancer. Result Conclusion Using reputable resources like PubMed, Sage journal, lancet, and Science Direct, our research team first gathered 43884 publications. A thorough three level screening strategy was used to identify only 10 articles that have a direct relationship with the current systematic review have been selected for further screening based on full-text reading and analyses. The selected articles, demonstrate a recent publication trend from 2014 – 2024. Laparoscopic restaging showed more favorable operative outcomes than laparotomy when performed by surgeons with considerable experience in laparoscopic surgery for gynecological malignancy. There was no difference in the oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic restaging compared with open restaging. Large prospective studies comparing the 2 approaches are warranted to confirm these findings.