Integration of robotics into two established programs of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer appears to decrease surgical complications.
- Author:
Joel CARDENAS-GOICOECHEA
1
;
Enrique SOTO
;
Linus CHUANG
;
Herbert GRETZ
;
Thomas C RANDALL
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Endometrial neoplasms; Laparoscopic surgery; Robotics
- MeSH: Blood Transfusion; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Intraoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Robotics; Urinary Tract
- From:Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2013;24(1):21-28
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare peri- and postoperative outcomes and complications of laparoscopic vs. robotic-assisted surgical staging for women with endometrial cancer at two established academic institutions. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all women that underwent total hysterectomy with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy by robotic-assisted or laparoscopic approach over a four-year period by three surgeons at two academic institutions. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were measured. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, number of lymph nodes retrieved, length of hospital stay and need for re-operation or re-admission. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-two cases were identified: 187 patients with robotic-assisted and 245 with laparoscopic staging. Both groups were statistically comparable in baseline characteristics. The overall rate of intraoperative complications was similar in both groups (1.6% vs. 2.9%, p=0.525) but the rate of urinary tract injuries was statistically higher in the laparoscopic group (2.9% vs. 0%, p=0.020). Patients in the robotic group had shorter hospital stay (1.96 days vs. 2.45 days, p=0.016) but an average 57 minutes longer surgery than the laparoscopic group (218 vs. 161 minutes, p=0.0001). There was less conversion rate (0.5% vs. 4.1%; relative risk, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 1.34; p=0.027) and estimated blood loss in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (187 mL vs. 110 mL, p=0.0001). There were no significant differences in blood transfusion rate, number of lymph nodes retrieved, re-operation or re-admission between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted surgery is an acceptable alternative to laparoscopy for staging of endometrial cancer and, in selected patients, it appears to have lower risk of urinary tract injury.
