A Comparison of Robot-assisted and Traditional Radical Hysterectomy for Early-stage Cervical Cancer

Overview

Journal J Robot Surg

Publisher Springer

Specialties Biotechnology
General Surgery

Date 2016 Sep 16

PMID 27628448

Citations 7

Authors

M Patrick Lowe

Anna V Hoekstra

Arati Jairam-Thodla

Diljeet K Singh

Barbara M Buttin

John R Lurain

Julian C Schink

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

A robotics surgery program was introduced into the division of gynecologic oncology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in June 2007. A prospective database of all patients undergoing a type III radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer between July 2007 and June 2008 was collected and analyzed. Demographic data and perioperative outcomes were analyzed between a traditional and robot-assisted approach. A total of 14 patients were identified who underwent a type III radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer. Seven patients underwent robotic surgery and seven patients underwent traditional surgery. There were no significant differences in median age or body mass index between the two groups. A significant difference in blood loss between robotic (75 cc) and traditional (700 cc) surgery was detected (P = 0.002). A significant difference in hospital stay between robotic (1 day) and traditional (5 days) surgery was observed (P = 0.0007). No significant difference in operative time (260 vs. 264 min) or lymph node yield (19 and 14) was identified between the robotic and traditional approaches. No major operative complications occurred with robotic radical hysterectomy. Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss and hospital stay. Improved nodal yields, fewer operative complications, and less pain was observed with the robotic approach. Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy appears safe and feasible and further investigation is warranted in a prospective fashion.

Citing Articles

The role of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: ESGE-SERGS position document and joint-statement.

Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2020; 12(1):13.

PMID: 32696020 PMC: 7363241.

Comparison of a novel surgical approach for radical hysterectomy: robotic assistance versus open surgery.

Feuer G, Benigno B, Krige L, Alvarez P J Robot Surg. 2016; 3(3):179.

PMID: 27638376 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-009-0159-1.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: case report and proposed training model.

Sanchez A, Rodriguez O, Davila H, Valero R, Benitez G, Sanchez R J Robot Surg. 2016; 5(2):145-8.

PMID: 27637543 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-010-0230-y.

Preemptive multimodal analgesia facilitates same-day discharge following robot-assisted hysterectomy.

Shultz T J Robot Surg. 2016; 6(2):115-23.

PMID: 27628274 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-011-0276-5.

Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years.

Tan A, Ashrafian H, Scott A, Mason S, Harling L, Athanasiou T Surg Endosc. 2016; 30(10):4330-52.

PMID: 26895896 PMC: 5009165. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-4752-x.

References

Frumovitz M, Dos Reis R, Sun C, Milam M, Bevers M, Brown J . Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110(1):96-102. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000268798.75353.04. View

Pomel C, Atallah D, Le Bouedec G, Rouzier R, Morice P, Castaigne D . Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer: 8-year experience of a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 91(3):534-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2003.08.035. View

Sert B, Abeler V . Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (Piver type III) with pelvic node dissection--case report. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006; 27(5):531-3. View

Magrina J, Mutone N, Weaver A, Magtibay P, FOWLER R, Cornella J . Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy and vaginal or laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for endometrial cancer: morbidity and survival. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 181(2):376-81. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70565-x. View

Reynolds R, Advincula A . Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg. 2006; 191(4):555-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.01.011. View

Jurnalov C, Gomez G, Townsend Jr C . Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot. Surg Endosc. 2002; 16(9):1271-3. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-002-8523-5. View

Fanning J, Fenton B, Purohit M . Robotic radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 198(6):649.e1-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.002. View

Boggess J, Gehrig P, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner E . A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(4):357.e1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.06.058. View

Spirtos N, Schlaerth J, Gross G, Spirtos T, Schlaerth A, Ballon S . Cost and quality-of-life analyses of surgery for early endometrial cancer: laparotomy versus laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 174(6):1795-9; discussion 1799-800. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70212-0. View

10.

Nezhat F, Datta M, Liu C, Chuang L, Zakashansky K . Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer. JSLS. 2008; 12(3):227-37. PMC: 3015864. View

11.

Magrina J, Kho R, Weaver A, Montero R, Magtibay P . Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 109(1):86-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.011. View

12.

Canis M, Mage G, Wattiez A, Pouly J, Manhes H, Bruhat M . [Does endoscopic surgery have a role in radical surgery of cancer of the cervix uteri?]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1990; 19(7):921. View

13.

Abu-Rustum N, Gemignani M, Moore K, Sonoda Y, Venkatraman E, Brown C . Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy using the argon-beam coagulator: pilot data and comparison to laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 91(2):402-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00518-3. View

14.

Li G, Yan X, Shang H, Wang G, Chen L, Han Y . A comparison of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy and laparotomy in the treatment of Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007; 105(1):176-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.11.011. View

15.

Hatch K, Hallum 3rd A, Surwit E, Childers J . The role of laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology. Cancer. 1995; 76(10 Suppl):2113-6. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19951115)76:10+<2113::aid-cncr2820761334>3.0.co;2-m. View

16.

Frumovitz M, Ramirez P, Greer M, Gregurich M, Wolf J, Bodurka D . Laparoscopic training and practice in gynecologic oncology among Society of Gynecologic Oncologists members and fellows-in-training. Gynecol Oncol. 2004; 94(3):746-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.06.011. View

17.

Ramirez P, Slomovitz B, Soliman P, Coleman R, Levenback C . Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2006; 102(2):252-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.12.013. View

18.

Gemignani M, Curtin J, Zelmanovich J, Patel D, Venkatraman E, Barakat R . Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: clinical outcomes and hospital charges. Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 73(1):5-11. DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1998.5311. View

19.

Nezhat C, Burrell M, Nezhat F, BENIGNO B, Welander C . Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166(3):864-5. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(92)91351-a. View

20.

Magrina J . Outcomes of laparoscopic treatment for endometrial cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 17(4):343-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.gco.0000175350.18308.73. View