Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer
Open Access
- 1 November 2017
- journal article
- Published by BMJ in International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer
- Vol. 27 (9), 1990-1999
- https://doi.org/10.1097/igc.0000000000001101
Abstract
ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) with traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in a large retrospective cohort of a total of 933 patients.MethodsWe have enrolled 100 patients into the RRH and 833 patients into the TLRH group. The surgical outcomes include operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate, pelvic lymph node yield, hospitalization days, duration of bowel function recovery, catheter removal before and after 3 weeks, conversion to laparotomy, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Follow-up results were also analyzed for all patients.ResultsBoth groups have similar patient and tumor characteristics but patients with a larger lesion size were preferably enrolled in the TLRH treatment group. The treatment with RRH was generally superior to TLRH with respect to operating time, blood loss, length of hospitalization, duration of bowel function recovery, and postoperative complications. On follow-up of patients, there were no relapses reported in the RRH group compared with 4% of relapse cases and 2.9% of deaths because of metastasis in the TLRH group. No conversion of laparotomy occurred in the RRH group. No significant difference was found with respect to intraoperative complications and blood transfusion between both groups.ConclusionsThe results from this study suggest that RRH is superior to TLRH with regard to surgical outcome and may pose a safe and feasible alternative to TLRH. The operating time and lymph node yield is acceptable. Our study is one of the largest single-center studies of surgical outcomes comparing RRH with TLRH during cervical cancer treatment and will significantly contribute to the safety of alternative treatment options for patients. Furthermore, the difference detected between TLRH and RRH group is further strengthened by the great expertise of the surgeon performing laparoscopic surgeries.Keywords
This publication has 41 references indexed in Scilit:
- Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Sacral ColpopexyUrogynecology, 2012
- Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: Review of Surgical and Oncological OutcomesISRN Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2011
- Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy—perioperative and survival outcomes in patients with cervical cancer compared to laparoscopic and open radical surgeryGynecological Surgery, 2011
- Oncologic Results and Surgical Morbidity of Laparoscopic Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy in the Treatment of FIGO Stage IB Cervical Cancer: Long-Term Follow-UpInternational Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, 2011
- Robotic approach for cervical cancer: Comparison with laparotomy A case control studyGynecologic Oncology, 2009
- A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomyAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2008
- Surgical versus radiographic determination of para‐aortic lymph node metastases before chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical carcinomaCancer, 2008
- Robotic radical hysterectomy in early‐stage cervical carcinoma patients, comparing results with total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy cases. The future is now?International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 2007
- Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy vs. radical abdominal hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a match controlled studyGynecologic Oncology, 2004
- A comparison of laparascopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancerGynecologic Oncology, 2004