OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of robotically assisted laparoscopy paraaortic lymphadenectomy (PAL), isolated or combined with another procedure using different surgical approaches. METHODS: From February 2007 to December 2010, 53 patients underwent paraaortic lymphadenectomy up to the left renal vein. We used three different approaches with three different positions for the robot in relation to the surgical procedure (isolated transperitoneal PAL, isolated extraperitoneal PAL, or transperitoneal PAL combined with another procedure). Thirty-nine patients underwent isolated lomboaortic lymphadenectomy and 14 a combined procedure. Information concerning installation time, operative time, peri- and postoperative complications, blood loss, lymph node count, and conversion rate was recorded. RESULTS: For the whole population, mean installation time was 33 ± 18 min, mean operative time was 197 ± 81 min, and mean hospital stay was 3.9 ± 2.8 days. We observed 15.1% lymph node involvement at definitive pathology. Between isolated trans- and extraperitoneal PAL, only body mass index (BMI, 27.4 versus 22 kg/m(2)) was significantly different. No difference was observed concerning mean number of lymph nodes or hospital stay. We observed statistical difference between combined and isolated PAL concerning mean operative time (256 versus 160 min), mean number of lymph nodes (7.8 versus 14.6), and hospital stay (5.9 versus 2.9 days). CONCLUSIONS: Although laparoscopic robotic-assisted PAL is a safe and feasible procedure, lymph node staging seems to be better if the procedure is isolated. In case of combined procedures, the surgical approach should be modified regarding patient BMI and the associated procedure, to increase lymph node count.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of robotically assisted laparoscopy paraaortic lymphadenectomy (PAL), isolated or combined with another procedure using different surgical approaches. METHODS: From February 2007 to December 2010, 53 patients underwent paraaortic lymphadenectomy up to the left renal vein. We used three different approaches with three different positions for the robot in relation to the surgical procedure (isolated transperitoneal PAL, isolated extraperitoneal PAL, or transperitoneal PAL combined with another procedure). Thirty-nine patients underwent isolated lomboaortic lymphadenectomy and 14 a combined procedure. Information concerning installation time, operative time, peri- and postoperative complications, blood loss, lymph node count, and conversion rate was recorded. RESULTS: For the whole population, mean installation time was 33 ± 18 min, mean operative time was 197 ± 81 min, and mean hospital stay was 3.9 ± 2.8 days. We observed 15.1% lymph node involvement at definitive pathology. Between isolated trans- and extraperitoneal PAL, only body mass index (BMI, 27.4 versus 22 kg/m(2)) was significantly different. No difference was observed concerning mean number of lymph nodes or hospital stay. We observed statistical difference between combined and isolated PAL concerning mean operative time (256 versus 160 min), mean number of lymph nodes (7.8 versus 14.6), and hospital stay (5.9 versus 2.9 days). CONCLUSIONS: Although laparoscopic robotic-assisted PAL is a safe and feasible procedure, lymph node staging seems to be better if the procedure is isolated. In case of combined procedures, the surgical approach should be modified regarding patient BMI and the associated procedure, to increase lymph node count.
Authors: Eric Leblanc; Fabrice Narducci; Michael Frumovitz; Anne Lesoin; Bernard Castelain; Marie C Baranzelli; Sophie Taieb; Charles Fournier; Denis Querleu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-01-29 Impact factor: 5.482
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
Authors: Eric Lambaudie; G Houvenaeghel; J Walz; M Bannier; M Buttarelli; B Gurriet; T De Laparrent; J L Blache Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Javier F Magrina; Jaime B Long; Rosanne M Kho; Dobie L Giles; Regina P Montero; Paul M Magtibay Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Robert W Holloway; Sarfraz Ahmad; Sara A DeNardis; Lorna B Peterson; Nazia Sultana; Glenn E Bigsby; Dirk P Pikaart; Neil J Finkler Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-09-17 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: V Zanagnolo; D Rollo; T Tomaselli; P G Rosenberg; L Bocciolone; F Landoni; G Aletti; M Peiretti; F Sanguineti; A Maggioni Journal: Obstet Gynecol Int Date: 2013-08-01