Michael S Guy1, Jeanelle Sheeder2, Kian Behbakht3, Jason D Wright4, Saketh R Guntupalli3. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. Electronic address: michael.guy@ucdenver.edu. 2. Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO. 4. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older patients are at increased risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality. There are limited data on the safety of a robotic approach in the staging for endometrial cancer. OBJECTIVE: We compared outcomes in women undergoing laparotomy or robotic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample database from 2008 through 2010, we abstracted records for patients who had surgery for endometrial cancer with either a robotic approach or laparotomy. Patients were categorized by age (<65 vs ≥65 years and 5-year increments). Medical comorbidity scores were calculated using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Outcomes included intraoperative/perioperative/medical complications, death, length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition. Student t and χ(2) tests were used to compare groups and approach. Multiple analysis of variance models were used to compare differences between robotics and laparotomy and age groups. RESULTS: We identified 16,980 patients who had surgery for endometrial cancer with either a robotic approach (age ≥65 years, n = 1228; age <65 years, n = 1574) or laparotomy (age ≥65 years, n = 5914; age <65 years, n = 8264). Older patients had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score at the time of surgery (2.6 vs 2.5, P < .001). In laparotomy cases, intraoperative complication rates were similar (4.1% vs 3.7%, P = .17). Older patients had higher rates of perioperative surgical (20.5% vs 15.4%, P < .001) and medical (23.3% vs 15.5%, P < .001) complications, longer LOS (5.1 vs 4.2 days, P < .001), and lower rates of discharge to home (71.2% vs 90.1%, P < .001). In robotic cases, rates of intraoperative complications were similar (5.9% vs 6.8%, P = .32). Older patients had higher rates of perioperative surgical (8.3% vs 5.2%, P = .001) and medical (12.3% vs 6.7%, P = .001) complications, longer LOS (2.00 vs 1.67 days, P < .001), and lower rates of discharge to home (88.8% vs 96.8%, P < .001). With both approaches, as age increased, perioperative surgical and medical complications also increased in a linear fashion. In a subanalysis of older patients (n = 7142), there were lower rates of perioperative surgical (8.3% vs 20.5%, P < .001) and medical (12.3% vs 23.3%, P < .001) complications, death (0.0% vs 0.8%, P < .001), shorter LOS (2.00 vs 5.13 days, P < .001) and higher rate of discharge to home (88.8% vs 71.2%, P < .001) in robotic compared to laparotomy cases. CONCLUSION: Although the risks of surgery increase with age, in patients age ≥65 years, a robotic approach for endometrial cancer appears to be safe given current selection criteria utilized in the United States.
BACKGROUND: Older patients are at increased risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality. There are limited data on the safety of a robotic approach in the staging for endometrial cancer. OBJECTIVE: We compared outcomes in women undergoing laparotomy or robotic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample database from 2008 through 2010, we abstracted records for patients who had surgery for endometrial cancer with either a robotic approach or laparotomy. Patients were categorized by age (<65 vs ≥65 years and 5-year increments). Medical comorbidity scores were calculated using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Outcomes included intraoperative/perioperative/medical complications, death, length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition. Student t and χ(2) tests were used to compare groups and approach. Multiple analysis of variance models were used to compare differences between robotics and laparotomy and age groups. RESULTS: We identified 16,980 patients who had surgery for endometrial cancer with either a robotic approach (age ≥65 years, n = 1228; age <65 years, n = 1574) or laparotomy (age ≥65 years, n = 5914; age <65 years, n = 8264). Older patients had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score at the time of surgery (2.6 vs 2.5, P < .001). In laparotomy cases, intraoperative complication rates were similar (4.1% vs 3.7%, P = .17). Older patients had higher rates of perioperative surgical (20.5% vs 15.4%, P < .001) and medical (23.3% vs 15.5%, P < .001) complications, longer LOS (5.1 vs 4.2 days, P < .001), and lower rates of discharge to home (71.2% vs 90.1%, P < .001). In robotic cases, rates of intraoperative complications were similar (5.9% vs 6.8%, P = .32). Older patients had higher rates of perioperative surgical (8.3% vs 5.2%, P = .001) and medical (12.3% vs 6.7%, P = .001) complications, longer LOS (2.00 vs 1.67 days, P < .001), and lower rates of discharge to home (88.8% vs 96.8%, P < .001). With both approaches, as age increased, perioperative surgical and medical complications also increased in a linear fashion. In a subanalysis of older patients (n = 7142), there were lower rates of perioperative surgical (8.3% vs 20.5%, P < .001) and medical (12.3% vs 23.3%, P < .001) complications, death (0.0% vs 0.8%, P < .001), shorter LOS (2.00 vs 5.13 days, P < .001) and higher rate of discharge to home (88.8% vs 71.2%, P < .001) in robotic compared to laparotomy cases. CONCLUSION: Although the risks of surgery increase with age, in patients age ≥65 years, a robotic approach for endometrial cancer appears to be safe given current selection criteria utilized in the United States.
Authors: Erin A Bishop; James J Java; Kathleen N Moore; Nick M Spirtos; Michael L Pearl; Oliver Zivanovic; David M Kushner; Floor Backes; Chad A Hamilton; Melissa A Geller; Jean Hurteau; Cara Mathews; Robert M Wenham; Pedro T Ramirez; Susan Zweizig; Joan L Walker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-10-14 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Maria P Ruiz; Ling Chen; June Y Hou; Ana I Tergas; Caryn M St Clair; Cande V Ananth; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Antonio Raffone; Antonio Travaglino; Diego Raimondo; Dominga Boccia; Martino Vetrella; Paolo Verrazzo; Marcello Granata; Paolo Casadio; Luigi Insabato; Antonio Mollo; Renato Seracchioli Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 4.447