Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: analysis of first 1000 cases
- PMID: 21411053
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.01.059
Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: analysis of first 1000 cases
Abstract
Objective: We sought to examine outcomes in an expanding robotic surgery (RS) program.
Study design: In all, 1000 women underwent RS from May 2006 through December 2009. We analyzed patient characteristics and outcomes. A total of 377 women undergoing RS for endometrial cancer staging (ECS) were compared with the historical data of 131 undergoing open ECS.
Results: For the entire RS cohort of 1000, the conversion rate was 2.9%. Body mass index increased over 3 time intervals: T1 = 26.2, T2 = 29.5, T3 = 30.1 (T1:T2, P = .01; T1:T3, P = .0001; T2:T3, P = .037). Increasing body mass index was not associated with increased major complications: T1 = 8.7%, T2 = 4.3%, T3 = 5.7%. In the ECS cohort, as compared with open ECS, women undergoing RS had lower blood loss (46.9 vs 197.6 mL, P < .0001), shorter hospitalization (1.4 vs 5.3 days, P < .0001), fewer major complications (6.4% vs 20.6%, P < .0001), with higher lymph node counts (15.5 vs 13.1, P = .007).
Conclusion: RS is associated with favorable morbidity and conversion rates in an unselected cohort. Compared to laparotomy, robotic ECS results in improved outcomes.
Copyright © 2011 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: impact on fellowship training.Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Aug;114(2):168-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.04.022. Epub 2009 May 15. Gynecol Oncol. 2009. PMID: 19446869
-
Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun;198(6):679.e1-9; discussion 679.e9-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.032. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008. PMID: 18538151
-
New technologies for reproductive medicine: laparoscopy, endoscopy, robotic surgery and gynecology. A review of the literature.Minerva Ginecol. 2010 Apr;62(2):137-67. Minerva Ginecol. 2010. PMID: 20502426 Review.
-
Comparison of robotic-assisted surgery outcomes with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging in Turkey.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010 Nov;282(5):539-45. doi: 10.1007/s00404-010-1593-z. Epub 2010 Jul 22. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010. PMID: 20652285
-
Robotics and gynecologic oncology: review of the literature.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009 Nov-Dec;16(6):669-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2009.06.024. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009. PMID: 19896593 Review.
Cited by
-
Impact of robotic surgery on patient flow and resource use intensity in ovarian cancer.J Robot Surg. 2023 Apr;17(2):537-547. doi: 10.1007/s11701-022-01447-0. Epub 2022 Aug 4. J Robot Surg. 2023. PMID: 35927390
-
Impact of the Learning Curve on the Survival of Abdominal or Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.Cancer Res Treat. 2021 Jan;53(1):243-251. doi: 10.4143/crt.2020.063. Epub 2020 Oct 12. Cancer Res Treat. 2021. PMID: 33070554 Free PMC article.
-
Robotic Surgery in Gynecology.Front Surg. 2016 May 2;3:26. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00026. eCollection 2016. Front Surg. 2016. PMID: 27200358 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The institutional learning curve is associated with survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer-a retrospective study.BMC Cancer. 2020 Feb 24;20(1):152. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-6660-7. BMC Cancer. 2020. PMID: 32093687 Free PMC article.
-
Robotic surgery compared with laparotomy for high-grade endometrial cancer.J Robot Surg. 2014 Jun;8(2):163-7. doi: 10.1007/s11701-013-0448-6. Epub 2014 Jan 12. J Robot Surg. 2014. PMID: 27637526
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources