Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) is a non-invasive therapy that combines low-frequency neurostimulation with the application of acupoints. Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of TEAS for post-operative complications following gynecological laparoscopy. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of TEAS for recovery following gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Seven electronic databases (CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane) were searched up to 24 September 2025. Continuous outcomes were pooled as mean differences (MDs) and dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 1). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess robustness, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger’s test where appropriate. Meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.4 software. A total of thirty studies (n = 2,573 patients) were ultimately included in the analysis. Notably, the meta-analysis findings indicated that TEAS treatment reduced postoperative pain in gynecological laparoscopic surgery patients at 6 h MD = -0.64, 95% CI (-1.17, -0.12), 12 h MD = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.35, -0.35), 24 h MD = -0.92, 95% CI (-1.29, -0.55), and 48 h MD = -0.75, 95% CI (-1.30, -0.20) postoperatively. Additionally, TEAS significantly reduced the incidence of PONV RR = 0.50, 95% CI (0.44, 0.57), and shortened the time to first flatus MD = − 7.52, 95% CI (− 10.17, − 4.87), defecationMD = -15.12, 95% CI (-21.97, -8.26) and time to bowel sound recoveryMD = -4.80, 95% CI (-7.67, -1.93). It also markedly improved QoR-15 MD = 2.87, 95% CI (1.15, 4.60) and MMSE scores MD = 1.80, 95% CI (0.40, 3.19). The meta-analysis suggests that TEAS may be associated with improved postoperative recovery after gynecological laparoscopy, particularly with respect to pain, PONV, and gastrointestinal recovery. However, it is important to note that the number and quality of included studies were limited. The certainty of evidence is limited by methodological weaknesses and substantial heterogeneity in several continuous outcomes. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted cautiously and require confirmation through further high-quality research.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.