Literature DB >> 20955983

Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer.

Peter C Lim1, Elizabeth Kang, Do Hwan Park.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To determine the learning curve for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for surgical treatment of endometrial cancer.
DESIGN: An analysis of robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy vs total laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy and laparotomy with total abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (Canadian Task Force classification II-1).
SETTING: Solo, experienced, minimally invasive gynecologic oncology practice in a tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred forty-eight patients including 56 patients who underwent robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection, 56 patients who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection, and 36 patients who underwent traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection performed by the same surgeon for treatment of endometrial cancer.
INTERVENTIONS: Robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy, total laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy, and traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy were performed. Data were categorized by chronologic order of cases into groups of 20 patients each. The learning curve of the surgical procedure was estimated by measuring operative time with respect to chronologic order of each patient who had undergone the respective procedure.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For the 3 surgical procedures, data analyzed included mean age, body mass index, operative time, blood loss, lymph node retrieval, and complications. Mean (SD); 95% confidence interval [CI]) operative time for the 3 procedures was statistically significant: 162.5 (53) minutes (95% CI, 148.6-176.4]), 192.3 (55.5) minutes (95% CI, 177.6-207.0), and 136.9 (32.3) minutes (95% CI, 126.3-147.5), respectively. Analysis of operative time for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymph node dissection with respect to chronologic order of each group of 20 cases demonstrated a decrease in operative time: 183.2 (69) minutes (95% CI; 153.0-213.4) for cases 1 to 20, 152.7 (39.8) minutes (95% CI, 135.3-170.1) for cases 21 to 40, and 148.8 (36.7) minutes (95% CI, 130.8-166.8) for cases 41 to 56. For the groups with laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy and traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy, there was no difference in operative time with respect to chronologic group order of cases. There was a difference between the number of lymph nodes retrieved between robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (26.7 [12.8]; 95% CI, 23.3-30.1) compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (45.1 [20.9]; 95% CI, 39.6-50.6) and traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (55.8 [23.4]; 95% CI, 48.2-63.4). The rate of intraoperative complications for laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy was 12.5% (7 of 56) compared with 0 % for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy. The rate of postoperative complications was 14.3% (8 of 56), 21.4% (12 of 56), and 19.4% (7 of 36), respectively, for the 3 groups. There was less blood loss with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (89.3 [45.4]; 95% CI, 77.4-101.2) compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (209.1 [91.8]; 95% CI, 185.1-233.1) and traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (266.0 [145.1]; 95% CI, 218.6-313.4). Duration of hospitalization was shorter in the group with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (1.6 [0.7]; 95% CI, 1.4-1.8) compared with the groups who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (2.6 [0.9]; 95% CI, 2.4-2.8) or traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (4.9 [1.9]; 95% CI, (4.3-5.5).
CONCLUSION: The learning curve for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymph node dissection seems to be easier compared with that for laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymph node dissection for surgical management of endometrial cancer.
Copyright © 2010 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20955983     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.07.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  18 in total

1.  A systematic review of the learning curve in robotic surgery: range and heterogeneity.

Authors:  I Kassite; T Bejan-Angoulvant; H Lardy; A Binet
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Prospective randomized study comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy and regional lymphadenectomy with traditional laparotomy for staging of endometrial carcinoma -initial Indian experience.

Authors:  S P Somashekhar; Rajshekhar C Jaka; Shabber S Zaveri
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-06-21

3.  Peri-operative and survival outcomes analysis of patients with endometrial cancer managed by three surgical approaches: a long-term Bulgarian experience.

Authors:  Slavcho T Tomov; Grigor A Gorchev; Desislava K Kiprova; Aleksandar D Lyubenov; Nadezhda H Hinkova; Vesela D Tomova; Zornitsa V Gorcheva; Sarfraz Ahmad
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2022-02-10

Review 4.  The current status of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer in Japan.

Authors:  Tomoko Gota; Kensuke Tomio; Taichi Kurose; Risa Saito; Ryoken Nara; Sohmi Kin; Minami Hoshiba; Yuri Ogata; Misao Nakanishi; Maya Takamoto; Miyuki Sadatsuki; Hajime Oishi
Journal:  Glob Health Med       Date:  2022-02-28

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Weimin Xie; Dongyan Cao; Jiaxin Yang; Keng Shen; Lin Zhao
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 4.553

7.  The impact of robotic surgery on gynecologic oncology.

Authors:  Alpa M Nick; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 4.401

8.  Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review.

Authors:  Lori Weinberg; Sanjay Rao; Pedro F Escobar
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2011-11-28

9.  Integration of robotics into two established programs of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer appears to decrease surgical complications.

Authors:  Joel Cardenas-Goicoechea; Enrique Soto; Linus Chuang; Herbert Gretz; Thomas C Randall
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 4.401

10.  Dual-console robotic surgery: a new teaching paradigm.

Authors:  Ashlee L Smith; Eirwen M Scott; Thomas C Krivak; Alexander B Olawaiye; Tianjiao Chu; Scott D Richard
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-04-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.