Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review
- PMID: 21099613
- DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f74153
Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review
Abstract
Objective: To summarize comparative studies describing clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgeries compared with traditional laparoscopic or laparotomy techniques for the treatment of endometrial cancer.
Data sources: Using search words "robotic hysterectomy" and "endometrial cancer," 22 citations were identified from Medline and PubMed (2005 to February 2010).
Methods of study selection: We selected English language studies reporting at least 25 robotic cases compared with laparoscopic or laparotomy cases that also addressed surgical technique, complications, and perioperative outcomes. Patients underwent total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lymphadenectomy.
Tabulation, integration, and results: Eight eligible comparative studies were identified that included 1,591 patients (robotic=589, laparoscopic=396, and laparotomy=606). Pooled means of the resected aortic lymph nodes for robotic hysterectomy and laparoscopy were 10.3 and 7.8 (P=.15), and robotic hysterectomy and laparotomy were 9.4 and 5.7 (P=.28). Pooled means of pelvic lymph nodes for robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy were 18.5 and 17.8 (P=.95) and 18.0 compared with 14.5 (P=.11) for robotic hysterectomy compared with laparotomy. Estimated blood loss was reduced in robotic hysterectomy compared with laparotomy (P<.005) and laparoscopy (P=.001). Length of stay was shorter for both robotic and laparoscopic cases compared with laparotomy (P<.01). Operative time for robotic hysterectomy was similar to laparoscopic cases but was greater than laparotomy (P<.005). Conversion to laparotomy for laparoscopic hysterectomy was 9.9% compared with 4.9% for robotic cases (P=.06). Vascular, bowel, and bladder injuries; cuff dehiscence; and thromboembolic complications were similar for each surgical method. Transfusions for robotic hysterectomy compared with laparotomy was 1.7% and 7.2% (P=.06) and robotic hysterectomy compared were laparoscopy was 2.6% and 5.0% (P=.22).
Conclusion: Perioperative clinical outcomes for robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy appear similar with the exception of less blood loss for robotic cases and longer operative times for robotic and laparoscopy cases.
Similar articles
-
Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;(9):CD006655. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006655.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 31;10:CD006655. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006655.pub3. PMID: 22972096 Updated.
-
Comparative safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep;42(9):1303-14. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.06.400. Epub 2016 Jun 29. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016. PMID: 27439723
-
Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) versus total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) in endometrial carcinoma: prospective cohort study.Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010 May;20(4):570-5. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181d8b105. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010. PMID: 20686375
-
Laparoscopic hysterectomy in the treatment of endometrial cancer: a systematic review.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008 Jul-Aug;15(4):395-401. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.04.018. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008. PMID: 18602044
-
Laparotomic versus robotic surgery in elderly patients with endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022 Apr;157(1):1-10. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13766. Epub 2021 Jun 19. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022. PMID: 34043235 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Robotic surgery for gynecologic cancers: indications, techniques and controversies.J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020 Jun;46(6):828-843. doi: 10.1111/jog.14228. Epub 2020 May 14. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020. PMID: 32410262 Free PMC article. Review.
-
New Developments in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Oncology Surgery.Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;60(2):330-348. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000286. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017. PMID: 28406810 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Robotic dual-docking surgery for para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer: a prospective feasibility study.Int J Clin Oncol. 2025 Feb;30(2):358-370. doi: 10.1007/s10147-024-02635-8. Epub 2024 Dec 21. Int J Clin Oncol. 2025. PMID: 39708238 Free PMC article.
-
The technique of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynaecology, its introduction into the clinical routine of a gynaecological department and the analysis of the perioperative courses - a German experience.J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2011 Jun 1;12(2):97-103. doi: 10.5152/jtgga.2011.23. eCollection 2011. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2011. PMID: 24591970 Free PMC article.
-
Patient satisfaction with robotic surgery.J Robot Surg. 2018 Sep;12(3):493-499. doi: 10.1007/s11701-017-0772-3. Epub 2017 Dec 29. J Robot Surg. 2018. PMID: 29288373
References
-
- Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Richardson DL, Valmadre S, Carlson MJ, Philips GS, et al. Robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:1207–13.
-
- Seamon LG, Fowler JM, Cohn DE. Lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer: the controversy. Gynecol Oncol 2010;117:6–8.
-
- Childers JM, Brzechffa PR, Hatch KD, Surwit EA. Laparoscopically assisted surgical staging (LASS) of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1993;51:33–8.
-
- Childers JM, Hatch KD, Tran AN, Surwit EA. Laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic malignancies. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:741–7.
-
- Thoma V, Salvatores M, Mereu L, Chua I, Wattiez A. Laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique, indications [French]. Ann Urol (Paris) 2007;41:80–90.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials