Literature DB >> 19546753

Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy.

Leigh G Seamon1, Shannon A Bryant, Patrick S Rheaume, Kristopher J Kimball, Warner K Huh, Jeffrey M Fowler, Gary S Phillips, David E Cohn.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare adequacy and outcomes of surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese women by robotics or laparotomy.
METHODS: Clinical stage I or occult stage II endometrial cancer patients with body mass indexes (BMIs) of at least 30 (BMI is calculated as weight (kg)/[height (m)]2) were identified undergoing robotic staging and matched 1:2 with laparotomy patients. Patient characteristics, operative times, complications, and pathologic factors were collected. An adequate lymphadenectomy was defined arbitrarily as at least 10 total nodes removed, and adequate pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy was defined as at least six and at least four nodes removed, respectively.
RESULTS: A total of 109 patients underwent surgery with the intent of robotic staging and were matched to 191 laparotomy patients. The mean BMI was 40 for each group. The robotic conversion rate was 15.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-24.2%). Ninety-two completed robotic patients were compared with 162 matched laparotomy patients. The two groups were comparable regarding total lymph node count (25 +/- compared with 24 +/- 12, P =.45) and the percentage of patients undergoing adequate lymphadenectomy (85% compared with 91%, P=.16) and adequate pelvic (90% compared with 95%, P=.16) and aortic lymphadenectomy (76% compared with 79%, P=.70) for robotic and laparotomy patients, respectively, but there was limited power to detect this difference. The blood transfusion rate (2% compared with 9%, odds ratio [OR] 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.97, P=.046), the number of nights in the hospital (1 compared with 3, P<.001), complications (11% compared with 27%, OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.13-0.65 P=.003), and wound problems (2% compared with 17%, OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.43, P=.002) were reduced for robotic surgery.
CONCLUSION: In obese women with endometrial cancer, robotic comprehensive surgical staging is feasible. Importantly, obesity may not compromise the ability to adequately stage patients robotically. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19546753     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181aa96c7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  31 in total

Review 1.  Robot-assisted surgery:--impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  O E O'Sullivan; B A O'Reilly
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  New Developments in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Oncology Surgery.

Authors:  Katherine Ikard Stewart; Amanda N Fader
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.190

3.  Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and staging for the treatment of endometrial cancer: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy and abdominal approaches.

Authors:  Ricardo Estape; Nicholas Lambrou; Eric Estape; Oscar Vega; Trisha Ojea
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-06-25

4.  Recent advances of robotic surgery and single port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology.

Authors:  Yong Wook Jung; Sang Wun Kim; Young Tae Kim
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 4.401

Review 5.  WITHDRAWN: Robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer.

Authors:  Gang Shi; DongHao Lu; Zhihong Liu; Dan Liu; Xiaoyan Zhou
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-12-11

6.  The technique of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynaecology, its introduction into the clinical routine of a gynaecological department and the analysis of the perioperative courses - a German experience.

Authors:  A Kubilay Ertan; Michael Ulbricht; Kirsten Huebner; Alexander Di Liberto
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2011-06-01

7.  Magnetic resonance or computerized tomography imaging to predict difficulty of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Michael A Finan; Jewel A Harris; Andrew M Fisher; Kevin Bradley; Heidi Henslee; Rodney P Rocconi
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-06-10

Review 8.  Robotic surgery: review of the latest advances, risks, and outcomes.

Authors:  Mary Downes Gastrich; Joseph Barone; Gloria Bachmann; Mark Anderson; Adrian Balica
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-01-21

9.  Influence of Morbid Obesity on Surgical Outcomes in Robotic-Assisted Gynecologic Surgery.

Authors:  Abeer Eddib; Alexandra Danakas; Shawna Hughes; Mehmet Erk; Caroline Michalik; Madusudanan Sathia Narayanan; Venkat Krovi; Pankaj Singhal
Journal:  J Gynecol Surg       Date:  2014-04-01

10.  Impact of Robotic Platforms on Surgical Approach and Costs in the Management of Morbidly Obese Patients with Newly Diagnosed Uterine Cancer.

Authors:  Mario M Leitao; Wazim R Narain; Donna Boccamazzo; Vasileios Sioulas; Danielle Cassella; Jennifer A Ducie; Ane Gerda Z Eriksson; Yukio Sonoda; Dennis S Chi; Carol L Brown; Douglas A Levine; Elizabeth L Jewell; Oliver Zivanovic; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Ginger J Gardner
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 5.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.