Surgical outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy using three robotic arms versus conventional multiport laparoscopy in patients with cervical cancer
- PMID: 25048478
- PMCID: PMC4108805
- DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2014.55.5.1222
Surgical outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy using three robotic arms versus conventional multiport laparoscopy in patients with cervical cancer
Abstract
Purpose: To compare surgical outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) using 3 robotic arms with those of conventional laparoscopy in patients with early cervical cancer.
Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort study included 102 patients with stage 1A1-IIA2 cervical carcinoma, of whom 60 underwent robotic and 42 underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) with pelvic lymph node dissection performed between December 2009 and May 2013. Perioperative outcomes were compared between two surgical groups.
Results: Robotic approach consisted of 3 robotic arms including the camera arm and 1 conventional assistant port. Laparoscopic approach consisted of four trocar insertions with conventional instruments. There were no conversions to laparotomy. Mean age, body mass index, tumor size, cell type, and clinical stage were not significantly different between two cohorts. RRH showed favorable outcomes over LRH in terms of estimated blood loss (100 mL vs. 145 mL, p=0.037), early postoperative complication rates (16.7% vs. 30.9%, p=0.028), and postoperative complications necessitating intervention by Clavien-Dindo classification. Total operative time (200.5±61.1 minutes vs. 215.6±83.1 minutes, p=0.319), mean number of lymph node yield (23.3±9.3 vs. 21.7±9.8, p=0.248), and median length of postoperative hospital stay (11 days vs. 10 days, p=0.129) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic group, respectively. The median follow-up time was 44 months with 2 recurrences in the robotic and 3 in the laparoscopic cohort.
Conclusion: Surgical outcomes of RRH and pelvic lymphadenectomy were comparable to that of laparoscopic approach, with significantly less blood loss and early postoperative complications.
Keywords: Cervical cancer; laparoscopy; robotics.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Perioperative Outcomes of 3-Arm Versus 4-Arm Robotic Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Jul-Aug;25(5):823-831. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.12.009. Epub 2017 Dec 26. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018. PMID: 29287717
-
Efficacy and safety outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy in Chinese older women with cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.BMC Womens Health. 2018 May 1;18(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s12905-018-0544-x. BMC Womens Health. 2018. PMID: 29716555 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Mini-laparoscopic versus robotic radical hysterectomy plus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer patients. A multi-institutional study.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Jan;41(1):136-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.10.048. Epub 2014 Oct 28. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015. PMID: 25468748
-
Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.Sci Rep. 2023 Jan 6;13(1):273. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-27430-9. Sci Rep. 2023. PMID: 36609438 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer - a systematic review.Colorectal Dis. 2020 May;22(5):488-499. doi: 10.1111/codi.14822. Epub 2019 Sep 4. Colorectal Dis. 2020. PMID: 31400185
Cited by
-
Comparative Survival Outcome of Robot-Assisted Staging Surgery Using Three Robotic Arms versus Open Surgery for Endometrial Cancer.Yonsei Med J. 2021 Jan;62(1):68-74. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2021.62.1.68. Yonsei Med J. 2021. PMID: 33381936 Free PMC article.
-
Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer.Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017 Nov;27(9):1990-1999. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001101. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017. PMID: 28858908 Free PMC article.
-
Application of robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery in lymph node dissection for gynecological cancer: A meta‑analysis.Oncol Lett. 2023 Mar 15;25(5):175. doi: 10.3892/ol.2023.13761. eCollection 2023 May. Oncol Lett. 2023. PMID: 37033101 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.J Gynecol Oncol. 2024 Jan;35(1):e9. doi: 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e9. Epub 2023 Sep 25. J Gynecol Oncol. 2024. PMID: 37857564 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical Relevance of Vaginal Cuff Dehiscence after Minimally Invasive versus Open Hysterectomy.J Clin Med. 2023 Apr 20;12(8):3001. doi: 10.3390/jcm12083001. J Clin Med. 2023. PMID: 37109333 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Medeiros LR, Rosa DD, Bozzetti MC, Fachel JM, Furness S, Garry R, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009:CD004751. - PubMed
-
- Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009:CD003677. - PubMed
-
- Advincula AP, Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:291–301. - PubMed
-
- Lin PS, Wakabayashi MT, Han ES. Role of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2009;10:33–43. - PubMed
-
- Mendivil A, Holloway RW, Boggess JF. Emergence of robotic assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: American perspective. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114(2 Suppl):S24–S31. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical