Robotic Surgery for Cervical Cancer.
10.3349/ymj.2008.49.6.879
- Author:
Javier F MAGRINA
1
;
Vanna L ZANAGNOLO
Author Information
1. Department of Gynaecology, Gynaecologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA. Magrina.javier@mayo.edu
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Cervical cancer;
treatment;
minimally invasive surgery;
robotic surgery
- MeSH:
Female;
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/*methods;
Humans;
Hysterectomy/methods;
Lymph Node Excision/methods;
Pelvic Exenteration/methods;
Robotics/*methods;
Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive/methods;
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/*surgery
- From:Yonsei Medical Journal
2008;49(6):879-885
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
The development of robotic technology has facilitated the application of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment and evaluation of patients with early, advanced, and recurrent cervical cancer. The application of robotic technology for selected patients with cervical cancer and the data available in the literature are addressed in the present review paper. The robotic radical hysterectomy technique developed at the Mayo Clinic Arizona is presented with data comparing 27 patients who underwent the robotic procedure with 2 matched groups of patients treated by laparoscopic (N = 31), and laparotomic radical hysterectomy (N = 35). A few other studies confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy and comparisons to either to the laparoscopic or open approach were discussed. Based on data from the literature, minimally invasive techniques including laparoscopy and robotics are preferable to laparotomy for patients requiring radical hysterectomy, with some advantages noted for robotics over laparoscopy. A prospective randomised trial is currently being perfomred under the auspices of the American Association of Gyneoclogic Laparoscopists comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (laparoscopy or robotics) with laparotomy. For early cervical cancer radical parametrectomy and fertility preserving trachelectomy have been performed using robotic technology and been shown to be feasible, safe, and easier to perform when compared to the laparoscopic approach. Similar benefits have been noted in the treatment of advanced and recurrent cervical cancer where complex procedures such as extraperitoneal paraortic lymphadenectomy and pelvic exenteration have been required. CONCLUSION: Robotic technology better facilitates the surgical approach as compared to laparoscopy for technically challenging operations performed to treat primary, early or advanced, and recurrent cervical cancer. Although patient advantages are similar or slightly improved with robotics, there are multiple advantages for surgeons.
