Literature DB >> 23054117

Analgesic and antiemetic requirements after minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer: a comparison between laparoscopy and robotic surgery.

Pamela T Soliman1, Ginger Langley, Mark F Munsell, Hemang A Vaniya, Michael Frumovitz, Pedro T Ramirez.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Women with early cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) have decreased blood loss and a shorter hospital stay compared with laparotomy. It remains unclear whether there is a difference in benefit to the patient between robotic surgery and traditional laparoscopy. We sought to compare postoperative analgesic and antiemetic requirements between the two approaches.
METHODS: After institutional review board approval, the medication administration records of all patients who underwent MIS radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer at MD Anderson Cancer Center were reviewed. Analgesic and antiemetic medication use as well as visual pain scores was recorded. Descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests were used to compare the groups undergoing laparoscopy (LRH) and robotic surgery (RRH).
RESULTS: A total of 85 patients underwent MIS for early cervical cancer, 55 LRH and 30 RRH. Median age was older in the RRH (42 vs. 52 years, p = 0.001). There was no difference in median body mass index (26.9 vs. 26.8 kg/m(2), p = 0.71). Length of stay was significantly shorter in the RRH (2 vs. 1 day, p = 0.005). Total intravenous opioids administered were significantly higher in the LRH (26.7 mg morphine equivalents) compared with the RRH (10.7 mg morphine equivalents) (p = 0.001). There was no difference in visual pain scores or antiemetics given.
CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous opioids administered were significantly less for RRH compared to LRH; however, there was no difference in visual pain scores. Prospective studies are being performed to evaluate quality of life in patients undergoing MIS for gynecologic cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23054117      PMCID: PMC4264594          DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2681-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  16 in total

1.  Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection.

Authors:  C R Nezhat; M O Burrell; F R Nezhat; B B Benigno; C E Welander
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  [Does endoscopic surgery have a role in radical surgery of cancer of the cervix uteri?].

Authors:  M Canis; G Mage; A Wattiez; J L Pouly; H Manhes; M A Bruhat
Journal:  J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris)       Date:  1990

3.  Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy using harmonic shears.

Authors:  Farr Nezhat; Ali Mahdavi; Nimesh P Nagarsheth
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.137

4.  Robotic radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical carcinoma patients, comparing results with total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy cases. The future is now?

Authors:  B Sert; V Abeler
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.547

5.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (Piver type III) with pelvic node dissection--case report.

Authors:  B M Sert; V M Abeler
Journal:  Eur J Gynaecol Oncol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 0.196

6.  Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy.

Authors:  Javier F Magrina; Rosanne M Kho; Amy L Weaver; Regina P Montero; Paul M Magtibay
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study.

Authors:  Angelo Maggioni; Lucas Minig; Vanna Zanagnolo; Michele Peiretti; Fabio Sanguineti; Luca Bocciolone; Nicoletta Colombo; Fabio Landoni; Giovanni Roviglione; Jorge Ivan Vélez
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy.

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

9.  Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience.

Authors:  Pedro T Ramirez; Brian M Slomovitz; Pamela T Soliman; Robert L Coleman; Charles Levenback
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2006-02-10       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  Michael Frumovitz; Ricardo dos Reis; Charlotte C Sun; Michael R Milam; Michael W Bevers; Jubilee Brown; Brian M Slomovitz; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Robotic surgery in gynecology.

Authors:  Ibrahim Alkatout; Liselotte Mettler; Nicolai Maass; Johannes Ackermann
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2016-12-01

2.  A retrospective evaluation of the perioperative drug use and comparison of its cost in robotic vs open surgery for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Reshu Agarwal; Anupama Rajanbabu; U G Unnikrishnan
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-03-22

3.  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

4.  Improvement in quality of life after robotic surgery results in patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Richard G Arms; Charlotte C Sun; Jennifer K Burzawa; Nicole D Fleming; Alpa M Nick; Vijayashri Rallapalli; Shannon N Westin; Larissa A Meyer; Pedro T Ramirez; Pamela T Soliman
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-07-18       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Ultrasound guided subcostal transversus abdominis plane (TAP) infiltration with liposomal bupivacaine for patients undergoing robotic assisted hysterectomy: A prospective randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Jacob Hutchins; Daniel Delaney; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Rahel G Ghebre; Levi S Downs; Linda Carson; Sally Mullany; Deanna Teoh; Melissa A Geller
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  Comparison of robotic surgery and laparoscopy to perform total hysterectomy with pelvic adhesions or large uterus.

Authors:  Li-Hsuan Chiu; Ching-Hui Chen; Pei-Chia Tu; Ching-Wen Chang; Yuan-Kuei Yen; Wei-Min Liu
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.407

7.  Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for the Large Uterus.

Authors:  Rooma Sinha; Rupa Bana; Madhumathi Sanjay
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

8.  Long-term satisfaction of patients after laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomy.

Authors:  Georgios Gitas; I Alkatout; L Proppe; L Hanker; L Allahqoli; G Grimbizis; A Rody; N Werner; S Sommer; S Baum
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-12-26       Impact factor: 2.493

9.  Perioperative analgesic requirements in severely obese adolescents and young adults undergoing laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted gastric sleeve resection.

Authors:  Anita Joselyn; Tarun Bhalla; Christopher McKee; Victoria Pepper; Karen Diefenbach; Marc Michalsky; Joseph D Tobias
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec

Review 10.  Robotic Surgery in Gynecology.

Authors:  Jean Bouquet de Joliniere; Armando Librino; Jean-Bernard Dubuisson; Fathi Khomsi; Nordine Ben Ali; Anis Fadhlaoui; J M Ayoubi; Anis Feki
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2016-05-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.