The comparison of surgical outcomes and learning curves of radical hysterectomy by laparoscopy and robotic system for cervical cancer: an experience of a single surgeon.
10.5468/ogs.2018.61.4.468
- Author:
Yoon Jung HEO
1
;
Seongmin KIM
;
Kyung Jin MIN
;
Sanghoon LEE
;
Jin Hwa HONG
;
Jae Kwan LEE
;
Nak Woo LEE
;
Jae Yun SONG
Author Information
1. Department of Medicine, Korea University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Hysterectomy;
Minimally invasive surgical procedures;
Learning curve
- MeSH:
Basal Ganglia;
Body Mass Index;
Gynecology;
Hand;
Hemorrhage;
Hospitalization;
Humans;
Hysterectomy*;
Infarction;
Laparoscopy*;
Learning Curve*;
Learning*;
Lymph Node Excision;
Lymph Nodes;
Methods;
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures;
Obstetrics;
Operative Time;
Peritonitis;
Postoperative Complications;
Surgical Instruments;
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms*
- From:Obstetrics & Gynecology Science
2018;61(4):468-476
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare and determine the feasibility, surgical outcomes, learning curves of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymph node dissection (RRHND) to conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with lymph node dissection (LRHND) performed by a single surgeon, in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: Between April 2009 and March 2013, 22 patients underwent LRHND and 19 patients underwent RRHND. Variables such as age, body mass index, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, histological results, number of dissected lymph nodes, operative time, estimated blood loss, days of hospitalization and complications were reviewed. Learning curves of operation time was obtained using cumulative sum (CUSUM) method. RESULTS: Both groups showed similar patient and tumor characteristics. In surgical outcome analysis, RRHND (51.8±10.4 minutes) showed longer preparing time than LRHND (42.5±14.1 minutes). In the LRHND group, 8 patients experienced postoperative complications (5 void difficulty, 1 postoperative bleeding, 1 right basal ganglia infarction, 1 fever). On the other hand, in the RRHND group, 4 patients experienced a postoperative complication (2 bleeding, 1 peritonitis, 1 dehiscence of trocar site). Using CUSUM method, the learning curves were obtained by plotting the cumulative sequential differences between each data point and the average operation time, and showed two distinct phases in both type of operations. CONCLUSION: RRHND would be appropriate surgical approach in patients with cervical cancer with favorable outcome of less voiding difficulty. A minimum of 13 cases of robotic radical hysterectomies are required to achieve surgical improvement in the treatment of cervical cancer.
