Literature DB >> 24231134

Comparison of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopy for extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy.

B Díaz-Feijoo1, B Gil-Ibáñez1, A Pérez-Benavente1, X Martínez-Gómez2, E Colás1, J L Sánchez-Iglesias1, S Cabrera-Díaz1, O Puig-Puig1, J F Magrina3, A Gil-Moreno4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy for locally advanced cervical cancer and to compare to a previous series of patients from our institution undergoing the same procedure by conventional laparoscopy.
METHODS: 17 patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO stages IB2, IIA2 and IIB-IVA) underwent pretherapeutic extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy by robotic-assisted laparoscopy. Perioperative outcomes including age, BMI, FIGO stage, operating time, blood loss, complications and length of hospital stay were compared to a series of 83 patients from our institution undergoing the same procedure by conventional laparoscopy.
RESULTS: The median values for operating time and hospital days for the robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopy groups were 150 vs. 150 min and 2 vs 2 days, respectively. In the robotic group, blood loss was lower (90 vs 20 ml, p<0.05) and more aortic nodes were removed (14 vs 17 nodes, p<0.05). Docking time was 7 min (range 3-15). There were no intraoperative complications. There were no differences for postoperative complications (17.6% vs 8.4%).
CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopy provide similar perioperative outcomes other than lower blood loss and higher number of aortic nodes removed (both without clinical impact) in robotic patients for the performance of extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. We believe that robotic surgery is an additional tool to perform the same surgical procedure. HIGHLIGHTS: Robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy provide similar perioperative outcomes.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; Extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy; Robotic-assisted laparoscopy

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24231134     DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.11.004

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


  8 in total

1.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal infrarenal lymphadenectomy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer by single docking: Do we need a backup procedure?

Authors:  Fatih Gucer; Selim Misirlioglu; Nuri Ceydeli; Cagatay Taskiran
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-03-02

Review 2.  Conventional Laparoscopy versus Robotic-Assisted Aortic Lymph-Nodal Staging for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mariano Catello Di Donna; Vincenzo Giallombardo; Giuseppina Lo Balbo; Giuseppe Cucinella; Giulio Sozzi; Vito Andrea Capozzi; Antonino Abbate; Antonio Simone Laganà; Simone Garzon; Vito Chiantera
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  Prognostic Value and Therapeutic Implication of Laparoscopic Extraperitoneal Paraaortic Staging in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Spanish Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Berta Díaz-Feijoo; Aureli Torné; Álvaro Tejerizo; Virginia Benito; Alicia Hernández; Rubén Ruiz; Santiago Domingo; Rocío Luna-Guibourg; Antonio Llueca; Pluvio Coronado; Juan Gilabert-Estelles; Vicente Bebia; Blanca Gil-Ibáñez; Antonio Gil-Moreno
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Laparoscopic extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy.

Authors:  Pablo Padilla Iserte; Lucas Minig; Cristina Zorrero
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2015-09-21

5.  A Meta-Analysis of Robotic Surgery in Endometrial Cancer: Comparison with Laparoscopy and Laparotomy.

Authors:  Jia Wang; Xiaomao Li; Haotian Wu; Yu Zhang; Fei Wang
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 3.434

6.  Surgical versus clinical staging prior to primary chemoradiation in patients with cervical cancer FIGO stages IIB-IVA: oncologic results of a prospective randomized international multicenter (Uterus-11) intergroup study.

Authors:  Simone Marnitz; Audrey Tieko Tsunoda; Peter Martus; Marcelo Vieira; Renato Jose Affonso Junior; João Nunes; Volker Budach; Hermann Hertel; Alexander Mustea; Jalid Sehouli; Jens-Peter Scharf; Uwe Ulrich; Andreas Ebert; Iris Piwonski; Christhardt Kohler
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 3.437

7.  Surgical Outcomes of Transperitoneal Para-Aortic Lymphadenectomy Compared With Extraperitoneal Approach in Gynecologic Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kun-Peng Li; Xian-Zhong Deng; Tao Wu
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2021-12-21

8.  Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: A separate meta-analysis of high-quality studies.

Authors:  Sha-Sha Zhang; Tian Ding; Zheng-Hui Cui; Yuan Lv; Ruo-An Jiang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 1.817

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.