Literature DB >> 20144471

Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center.

Joel Cardenas-Goicoechea1, Sarah Adams, Suneel B Bhat, Thomas C Randall.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare peri- and post-operative complications and outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging with traditional laparoscopic surgical staging for women with endometrial cancer.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review of cases of women undergoing minimally invasive total hysterectomy and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy by a robotic-assisted approach or traditional laparoscopic approach was conducted. Major intraoperative complications, including vascular injury, enterotomy, cystotomy, or conversion to laparotomy, were measured. Secondary outcomes including operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, number of lymph nodes retrieved, and the length of hospitalization were also measured.
RESULTS: 275 cases were identified-102 patients with robotic-assisted staging and 173 patients with traditional laparoscopic staging. There was no significant difference in the rate of major complications between groups (p=0.13). The mean operative time was longer in cases of robotic-assisted staging (237 min vs. 178 min, p<0.0001); however, blood loss was significantly lower (109 ml vs. 187 ml, p<0.0001). The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved were similar between groups (p=0.32). There were no significant differences in the time to discharge, re-admission, or re-operation rates between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted surgery is an acceptable alternative to laparoscopy for minimally invasive staging of endometrial cancer. In addition to the improved ease of operation, visualization, and range of motion of the robotic instruments, robotic surgery results in a lower mean blood loss, although longer operative time. More data are needed to determine if the rates of urinary tract injuries and other surgical complications can be reduced with the use of robotic surgery. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20144471      PMCID: PMC2896309          DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  20 in total

1.  Computer-enhanced robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology.

Authors:  Jayson B Field; Michelle F Benoit; Tri A Dinh; Concepcion Diaz-Arrastia
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-12-19       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  The impact of robotics on practice management of endometrial cancer: transitioning from traditional surgery.

Authors:  Anna V Hoekstra; Arati Jairam-Thodla; Alfred Rademaker; Diljeet K Singh; Barbara M Buttin; John R Lurain; Julian C Schink; M Patrick Lowe
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.547

3.  A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy.

Authors:  John F Boggess; Paola A Gehrig; Leigh Cantrell; Aaron Shafer; Mildred Ridgway; Elizabeth N Skinner; Wesley C Fowler
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging and radical hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system.

Authors:  Aaron Shafer; John F Boggess
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-09-03       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal vs. abdominal surgery in patients with endometrial cancer stage 1.

Authors:  Lisbeth Tollund; Birgit Hansen; Jens Jørgen Kjer
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.636

6.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience.

Authors:  R Kevin Reynolds; Arnold P Advincula
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.565

7.  Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging.

Authors:  Dan S Veljovich; Pamela J Paley; Charles W Drescher; Elise N Everett; Chirag Shah; William A Peters
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Leigh G Seamon; David E Cohn; Debra L Richardson; Sue Valmadre; Matthew J Carlson; Gary S Phillips; Jeffrey M Fowler
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot.

Authors:  C Diaz-Arrastia; C Jurnalov; G Gomez; C Townsend
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-06-27       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy in clinical stage I endometrial cancer: safety, recurrence, and long-term outcome.

Authors:  Ioannis Kalogiannidis; Sandrijne Lambrechts; Frederic Amant; Patrick Neven; Toon Van Gorp; Ignace Vergote
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  24 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

2.  Comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional open surgical staging procedure for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Tae Wook Kong; Kyung Mi Lee; Ji Yoon Cheong; Woo Young Kim; Suk-Joon Chang; Seung-Chul Yoo; Jong-Hyuck Yoon; Ki-Hong Chang; Hee-Sug Ryu
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 4.401

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

Review 4.  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

5.  Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.

Authors:  Theresa A Lawrie; Hongqian Liu; DongHao Lu; Therese Dowswell; Huan Song; Lei Wang; Gang Shi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-04-15

6.  Evaluation of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator in Gynecologic Oncology Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Surgery.

Authors:  Deanna Teoh; Rebi Nahum Halloway; Jennifer Heim; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Colleen Rivard
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2016-10-24       Impact factor: 4.137

7.  Technical modifications in the robotic-assisted surgical approach for gynaecologic operations.

Authors:  Frederik Peeters; Zvi Vaknin; Susie Lau; Claire Deland; Sonya Brin; Walter H Gotlieb
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-11-10

8.  Operative and anesthetic outcomes in endometrial cancer staging via three minimally invasive methods.

Authors:  Nicole D Fleming; Allison E Axtell; Scott E Lentz
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-11-01

9.  Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2010-12-01

Review 10.  Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Immaculate F Nevis; Bahareh Vali; Caroline Higgins; Irfan Dhalla; David Urbach; Marcus Q Bernardini
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-07-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.