Literature DB >> 27288987

Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Minna M Mäenpää1, Kari Nieminen2, Eija I Tomás2, Marita Laurila3, Tiina H Luukkaala4, Johanna U Mäenpää5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery to traditional laparoscopic or open surgery in gynecologic oncology have been retrospective. To our knowledge, no prospective randomized trials have thus far been performed on endometrial cancer.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to prospectively compare traditional and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled trial. From December 2010 through October 2013, 101 endometrial cancer patients were randomized to hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymphadenectomy either by robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery or by traditional laparoscopy. The primary outcome measure was overall operation time. The secondary outcome measures included total time spent in the operating room, and surgical outcome (number of lymph nodes harvested, complications, and recovery). The study was powered to show at least a 25% difference in the operation time using 2-sided significance level of .05. The differences between the traditional laparoscopy and the robotic surgery groups were tested by Pearson χ2 test, Fisher exact test, or Mann-Whitney test.
RESULTS: In all, 99 patients were eligible for analysis. The median operation time in the traditional laparoscopy group (n = 49) was 170 (range 126-259) minutes and in the robotic surgery group (n = 50) was 139 (range 86-197) minutes, respectively (P < .001). The total time spent in the operating room was shorter in the robotic surgery group (228 vs 197 minutes, P < .001). In the traditional laparoscopy group, there were 5 conversions to laparotomy vs none in the robotic surgery group (P = .027). There were no differences as to the number of lymph nodes removed, bleeding, or the length of postoperative hospital stay. Four (8%) vs no (0%) patients (P = .056) had intraoperative complications and 5 (10%) vs 11 (22%) (P = .111) had major postoperative complications in the traditional and robotic surgery groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: In patients with endometrial cancer, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery was faster to perform than traditional laparoscopy. Also total time spent in the operation room was shorter in the robotic surgery group and all conversions to laparotomy occurred in the traditional laparoscopy group. Otherwise, the surgical outcome was similar between the groups. Robotic surgery offers an effective and safe alternative in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  endometrial cancer; gynecologic surgery; operation time; robotic-assisted surgery; traditional laparoscopic surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27288987     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  25 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis.

Authors:  Walaa F Abdelmoaty; Christy M Dunst; Chris Neighorn; Lee L Swanstrom; Chet W Hammill
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Robotic surgery in gynecology.

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

Review 3.  Novel Surgical Strategies in the Treatment of Gynecological Malignancies.

Authors:  Martina Aida Angeles; Carlos Martínez-Gómez; Federico Migliorelli; Marie Voglimacci; Justine Figurelli; Stephanie Motton; Yann Tanguy Le Gac; Gwénaël Ferron; Alejandra Martinez
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2018-11-09

4.  Health care cost consequences of using robot technology for hysterectomy: a register-based study of consecutive patients during 2006-2013.

Authors:  Karin Rosenkilde Laursen; Vibe Bolvig Hyldgård; Pernille Tine Jensen; Rikke Søgaard
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-07-10

Review 5.  The robotic single-port platform for gynecologic surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Vito Andrea Capozzi; Giulia Armano; Andrea Rosati; Alessandro Tropea; Antonio Biondi
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2020-05-29

6.  Patient satisfaction with robotic surgery.

Authors:  Emma Long; Fiona Kew
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-12-29

7.  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

8.  A Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes in Uterine Cancer Surgery After the Introduction of Robotic-Assisted Surgery.

Authors:  Reshu Agarwal; Anupama Rajanbabu; Gaurav Goel; U G Unnikrishnan
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2018-09-19

Review 9.  The current status of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer in Japan.

Authors:  Tomoko Gota; Kensuke Tomio; Taichi Kurose; Risa Saito; Ryoken Nara; Sohmi Kin; Minami Hoshiba; Yuri Ogata; Misao Nakanishi; Maya Takamoto; Miyuki Sadatsuki; Hajime Oishi
Journal:  Glob Health Med       Date:  2022-02-28

10.  Learning curve of surgical novices using the single-port platform SymphonX: minimizing OR trauma to only one 15-mm incision.

Authors:  Rabi R Datta; Sebastian Schönhage; Thomas Dratsch; Justus Toader; Dolores T Müller; Roger Wahba; Robert Kleinert; Michael Thomas; Georg Dieplinger; Dirk L Stippel; Christiane J Bruns; Hans F Fuchs
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.