Literature DB >> 24557439

Comparison of perioperative outcomes and complication rates between conventional versus robotic-assisted laparoscopy in the evaluation and management of early, advanced, and recurrent stage ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer.

Farr Reza Nezhat1, Tamara Natasha Finger, Patrick Vetere, Amir Reza Radjabi, Mario Vega, Lauren Averbuch, Susan Khalil, Sadiman Kiykac Altinbas, Daniel Lax.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine perioperative outcomes, including complication rates, of conventional laparoscopy (CL) versus robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RALS) in the evaluation and management of early, advanced, and recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer.
METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of surgery performed from July 2008 to December 2012. Sixty-three women had 83 surgeries performed; 22 surgeries for early-stage disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I) and 61 for advanced and/or recurrent disease.
RESULTS: Of the 22 for early stage, 10 were CL, 9 were RALS, and 3 were laparoscopy converted to laparotomy (LP). There was no significant difference between CL and RALS in estimated blood loss (EBL, P = 0.27) or length of stay (LOS, P = 0.43); however, both had significantly less EBL (P = 0.03 and 0.03, respectively) and LOS (P = 0.03 and 0.03) than LP. There was no difference in OR time among the groups (P = 0.79). One patient (33%) had an intraoperative complication in LP. One patient (10%) had a postoperative complication in CL, 2 (22%) in RALS, and 1 (33%) in LP, with no significant difference (P = 0.61).Among the 42 patients with advanced/recurrent disease, 61 surgeries were performed: 14 diagnostic procedures and 47 cytoreductive surgeries. Of the 47, there was no difference in operating room time (P = 0.10). There was no difference in EBL or LOS between CL and RALS (P = 0.82, P = 0.87); however, both were less in CL (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02) and RALS (P = 0.01 and P = 0.02) compared with LP. There were 5 (63%) intraoperative transfusions in LP and none in CL or RALS. When including all surgeries for advanced/recurrent disease, there was 1 intraoperative complication (12%) in LP. There was no difference in postoperative complications between groups (P = 0.89); 8 patients (19%) had postoperative complications in CL, 2 (18%) in RALS, and 2 (25%) in LP. Overall, there were no grade 4 or 5 complications and no perioperative or intraoperative deaths.
CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, perioperative outcomes are comparable between CL and RALS in both early and advanced/recurrent disease and not inferior to laparotomy, making CL and RALS an acceptable approach in selected patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24557439     DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  6 in total

Review 1.  Laparotomy vs. minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer recurrence: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stefano Uccella; Massimo P Franchi; Stefano Cianci; Pier Carlo Zorzato; Francesca Bertoli; Salvatore Gueli Alletti; Fabio Ghezzi; Giovanni Scambia
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-08

Review 2.  The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Marco Milone; Michele Manigrasso; Pietro Anoldo; Anna D'Amore; Ugo Elmore; Mariano Cesare Giglio; Gianluca Rompianesi; Sara Vertaldi; Roberto Ivan Troisi; Nader K Francis; Giovanni Domenico De Palma
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-02-18

3.  Perioperative and Survival Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgery, Comparison with Laparoscopy and Laparotomy, for Ovarian Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Qin Tang; Weichu Liu; Dan Jiang; Junying Tang; Qin Zhou; Jing Zhang
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 4.501

Review 4.  Borderline ovarian tumours: management in the era of fertility-sparing surgery.

Authors:  Mattia Maramai; Fabio Barra; Mario Valenzano Menada; Sara Stigliani; Melita Moioli; Sergio Costantini; Simone Ferrero
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2020-05-06

5.  Robotic-assisted interval cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Semiramis L Carbajal-Mamani; David Schweer; Merry J Markham; Ashwini K Esnakula; Joseph R Grajo; Jacqueline C Castagno; Joel Cardenas-Goicoechea
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Sci       Date:  2020-02-10

6.  Survey of current practices and opinions of German Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy members regarding the treatment of ovarian neoplasia by robotic surgery.

Authors:  J S M Zimmermann; J C Radosa; M P Radosa; P Sklavounos; P A Schweitzer; E F Solomayer
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 2.344

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.