» Articles » PMID: 31667168

Comparative Analysis of Robotic Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2019 Nov 1
PMID 31667168
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy, ranking first in female reproductive malignancies with more than 500000 new cases and 275000 deaths each year. Traditionally, open radical hysterectomy is considered the standard surgical procedure for the treatment of resectable cervical cancer. The latest guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society of Gynecological Oncology suggest that open surgery and laparoscopic surgery (using traditional laparoscopic or robotic techniques) are the main surgical approaches for radical hysterectomy for patients with stage IA2-IIA cervical cancer. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in abdominal surgery and has shown more beneficial effects.

Aim: To analyse the perioperative conditions, complications, and short-term and long-term effects in patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) to compare their clinical efficacy, safety, and feasibility.

Methods: The perioperative data of patients undergoing RRH and LRH were extracted and collected from the database of surgical treatments for cervical cancer for statistical analysis.

Results: Of the patients, 342 underwent LRH for cervical cancer, and 216 underwent RRH. The total complication rate was 9.65% (20 patients) in the RRH group and 17.59% (60 patients) in the LRH group. The complication rate was significantly lower in the RRH group than in the LRH group. There was no significant difference in the follow-up period ( = 0.658). The total recurrence rates were 15.7% and 12% in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively. The progression-free survival time was 28.91 ± 15.68 mo and 28.34 ± 15.13 mo in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively ( = 0.669). The overall survival (OS) rates were 92.13% and 94.45% in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively ( = 0.292). The OS time was 29.87 ± 15.92 mo and 29.41 ± 15.14 mo in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively ( = 0.732). The survival curves and the progression-free survival curves were not statistically significantly different between the two groups ( = 0.407 and 0.28, respectively).

Conclusion: RRH is associated with significantly less operative time and blood loss than LRH. The two procedures have similar complication rates, OS, and progression-free survival time.

Citing Articles

Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopy for the management of early-stage cervical cancer: a model-based economic evaluation in China.

Chen C, Zhang M, Tang J, Pu K BMJ Open. 2024; 14(11):e087113.

PMID: 39572093 PMC: 11580275. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087113.


Robotic-assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Gynecological Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Bahadur A, Zaman R, Mundhra R, Mani K J Midlife Health. 2024; 15(2):91-98.

PMID: 39145271 PMC: 11321512. DOI: 10.4103/jmh.jmh_235_23.


Surgical Treatment for Early Cervical Cancer in the HPV Era: State of the Art.

Palumbo M, Della Corte L, Ronsini C, Guerra S, Giampaolino P, Bifulco G Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(22).

PMID: 37998434 PMC: 10671714. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11222942.


Comparison of survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Hwang J, Kim B J Gynecol Oncol. 2023; 35(1):e9.

PMID: 37857564 PMC: 10792214. DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2024.35.e9.


Effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on postoperative wound infection in patients with cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.

Huang J, Tan Z, Wu W, Wu X, Liu L, Li C Int Wound J. 2023; .

PMID: 37852784 PMC: 10828729. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14437.


References
1.
Satkunasivam R, Tallman C, Taylor J, Miles B, Klaassen Z, Wallis C . Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy Versus Open Radical Cystectomy: A Meta-analysis of Oncologic, Perioperative, and Complication-related outcomes. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 2(4):443-447. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.10.008. View

2.
Park D, Yun J, Kim S, Lee S . Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016; 43(6):994-1002. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.07.017. View

3.
Kawal T, Sahadev R, Srinivasan A, Chu D, Weiss D, Long C . Robotic surgery in infants and children: an argument for smaller and fewer incisions. World J Urol. 2019; 38(8):1835-1840. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02765-z. View

4.
Corrado G, Fanfani F, Ghezzi F, Fagotti A, Uccella S, Mancini E . Mini-laparoscopic versus robotic radical hysterectomy plus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer patients. A multi-institutional study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014; 41(1):136-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.10.048. View

5.
Davis M, Feldman S . Making Sense of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines and Recommendations. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2015; 16(12):55. DOI: 10.1007/s11864-015-0373-1. View