» Articles » PMID: 20153886

Survival Outcomes for Women Undergoing Type III Robotic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: a 3-year Experience

Overview
Journal Gynecol Oncol
Date 2010 Feb 16
PMID 20153886
Citations 37
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

OBJECTIVES.: To assess progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for women with cervical cancer who underwent type III robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH). METHODS.: A retrospective analysis of women who underwent RRH from 2005 to 2008 was performed. The data analyzed included patient demographics, histology, clinical stage, surgical margins, lymph node and disease status. Comparison was made to a group of historical open radical hysterectomies. Survival statistics were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS.: Seventy-one women underwent attempted RRH during the study period. Eight were excluded from analysis, 4 for non-cervical primary and 4 cases aborted due to extent of disease. Squamous was the most common histology (62%) followed by adenocarcinoma (32%). Median patient age was 43 years. There was one intraoperative complication (asystole after induction) and two postoperative complications (ICU admission to rule out myocardial infarction and reoperation for cuff dehiscence). Of the patients who underwent RRH, 32% received whole-pelvis radiation with chemo sensitization. The median follow-up was 12.2 months (range 0.2-36.3 months). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated 94% PFS and OS at 36 months due to the recurrence and death of one patient. Compared with a historical cohort at our institution, there was no statistically significant difference in PFS (P=0.27) or OS (P=0.47). CONCLUSIONS.: RRH is safe and feasible and has been shown to be associated with improved operative measures. This study shows that at 3 years, RRH appears to have PFS and OS equivalent to that of traditional laparotomy. Longer follow-up is needed, but early data are supportive of at least equivalent oncologic outcomes compared with other surgical modalities.

Citing Articles

Feasibility and Safety of ArtiSential for Minimally Invasive Surgery in Early-stage Gynecologic Cancer: Results from the KGOG 4002/GYANT Study.

Kang O, Kim K, Lee K, Kim M, Hwang J, Kim T Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2024; 13(4):253-259.

PMID: 39660243 PMC: 11626890. DOI: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_3_24.


Robot-assisted Müllerian compartment resection for cervical cancer.

Li Y, Na J, Wang X, Han S, Wang J Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1466921.

PMID: 39474108 PMC: 11519682. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1466921.


Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer stage IB1.

Kim S, Yoo J, Lee S, Park D, Yoon J Int J Med Sci. 2023; 20(3):287-291.

PMID: 36860680 PMC: 9969504. DOI: 10.7150/ijms.79830.


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.


Clavien-Dindo classification and risk prediction model of complications after robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

Ling H, Wang G, Yi B, Li Z, Zhu S J Robot Surg. 2022; 17(2):527-536.

PMID: 35913623 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01450-5.