» Articles » PMID: 19638333

Robotic Approach for Cervical Cancer: Comparison with Laparotomy: a Case Control Study

Overview
Journal Gynecol Oncol
Date 2009 Jul 30
PMID 19638333
Citations 32
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To compare the surgical outcome of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for the treatment of early stage cervical cancer.

Methods: A prospective collection of data of all RRH for stages IA2-IIA cervical cancer was done. The procedures were performed at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, between November 1, 2006 and February 1, 2009.

Results: A total of 40 RRH were analyzed, and compared with 40 historic ARH cases. The groups did not differ significantly in body mass index, stage, histology, or intraoperative complications, but in age (p=0.035). The mean (SD) operative time was significantly shorter for ARH than RRH, 199.6 (65.6) minutes and 272.27 (42.3) minutes respectively (p=0.0001). The mean (SD) estimated blood loss (EBL) was 78 ml (94.8) in RRH group and 221.8 ml (132.4) in ARH. This difference was statistically significant in favor of RRH group (p<0.0001). Statistically significantly higher number of pelvic lymph nodes was removed by ARH than by RRH, mean (SD) 26.2 (11.7) versus 20.4 (6.9), p<0.05. Mean length of stay was significantly shorter for the RRH group (3.7 versus 5.0 days, p<0.01). There was no significant difference in terms of postoperative complications between groups.

Conclusion: This study shows that RRH is safe and feasible. However, a comparison of oncologic outcomes and cost-benefit analysis is still needed and it has to be carefully evaluated in the future.

Citing Articles

A meta-analysis comparing open and minimally invasive cervical tumor surgery wound infection and postoperative complications.

Song R, Ma M, Yang N, Chen C, Wang H, Li J BMC Surg. 2024; 24(1):413.

PMID: 39710635 PMC: 11665136. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-024-02713-8.


A meta-analysis examining the impact of open surgical therapy versus minimally invasive surgery on wound infection in females with cervical cancer.

Yun Z, Li X, Zhu D, Li L, Jiang S Int Wound J. 2024; 21(4):e14535.

PMID: 38169097 PMC: 10961045. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14535.


Robotic Surgery: The Future of Gynaecology.

Chandrakar I, Pajai S, Toshniwal S Cureus. 2022; 14(10):e30569.

PMID: 36415384 PMC: 9676702. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.30569.


The value of surgical admissions for malignant uterine cancer. A comparative analysis of robotic, laparoscopic, and laparotomy surgery in a university hospital.

Specchia M, Arcuri G, Di Pilla A, La Gatta E, Osti T, Limongelli P Front Public Health. 2022; 10:920578.

PMID: 36276379 PMC: 9582355. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.920578.


Effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.

Zheng S, Liu X, Cheng L, Wu Q, Meng F Int Wound J. 2022; 20(4):1061-1071.

PMID: 36111540 PMC: 10031228. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13962.