OBJECTIVE:Open radical hysterectomy followed by adjuvant radiationfor cervical cancer has been associated with significant rates of morbidity. Radical hysterectomy is now often performed robotically. We sought to examine if the robotic platform decreased the morbidity associated with radical hysterectomy followed by adjuvant radiation. MATERIALS/ METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients with cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy from 1995 to 2013 was evaluated. Complications were assessed using electronic record review and graded. χ tests and Student t tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 243 patients underwentradical hysterectomyfor cervical cancer. Surgical approach was 43% open and 57% robotic. Eighty-three patients (34.2%) required adjuvant radiation. Overall, radical hysterectomy plus adjuvant radiation was associated with increased risk of complication (29%) compared to radical hysterectomy alone (7%) (P < 0.001). Complications included lymphedema (n = 18), bowel-associated complications (n = 10), and urinary complications (n = 7). There was no difference in time to initiation of radiation between open and robotic surgery (43 vs 47 days; P = 0.33). There was no difference in grade 2/3 complications in patients receiving adjuvant radiation between open and robotic surgery (27.5% vs 27.9%; P = 0.97). Patients undergoing open surgery followed by radiation experienced a trend toward increased adhesion-related complications, such as bowel obstruction and ureteral stricture (10% vs 2.3%; P = 0.19); whereas patients undergoing robotic surgery followed by radiation experienced a trend toward increased lymphedema (19% vs 8%; P = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in long-term complications between patients who underwent robotic surgery compared to open radical hysterectomy with adjuvant radiation. There may be fewer adhesion-related complications with robotic surgery. However, as many radiation-related complications occur at later time points, continued follow-up to evaluate for potential differences between the 2 groups is necessary.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Open radical hysterectomy followed by adjuvant radiation for cervical cancer has been associated with significant rates of morbidity. Radical hysterectomy is now often performed robotically. We sought to examine if the robotic platform decreased the morbidity associated with radical hysterectomy followed by adjuvant radiation. MATERIALS/ METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients with cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy from 1995 to 2013 was evaluated. Complications were assessed using electronic record review and graded. χ tests and Student t tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 243 patients underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Surgical approach was 43% open and 57% robotic. Eighty-three patients (34.2%) required adjuvant radiation. Overall, radical hysterectomy plus adjuvant radiation was associated with increased risk of complication (29%) compared to radical hysterectomy alone (7%) (P < 0.001). Complications included lymphedema (n = 18), bowel-associated complications (n = 10), and urinary complications (n = 7). There was no difference in time to initiation of radiation between open and robotic surgery (43 vs 47 days; P = 0.33). There was no difference in grade 2/3 complications in patients receiving adjuvant radiation between open and robotic surgery (27.5% vs 27.9%; P = 0.97). Patients undergoing open surgery followed by radiation experienced a trend toward increased adhesion-related complications, such as bowel obstruction and ureteral stricture (10% vs 2.3%; P = 0.19); whereas patients undergoing robotic surgery followed by radiation experienced a trend toward increased lymphedema (19% vs 8%; P = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in long-term complications between patients who underwent robotic surgery compared to open radical hysterectomy with adjuvant radiation. There may be fewer adhesion-related complications with robotic surgery. However, as many radiation-related complications occur at later time points, continued follow-up to evaluate for potential differences between the 2 groups is necessary.
Authors: Elizabeth L Jewell; Shalini Kulasingam; Evan R Myers; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Laura J Havrilesky Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-09-27 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jason D Wright; Thomas J Herzog; Alfred I Neugut; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Sharyn N Lewin; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-06-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: W A Peters; P Y Liu; R J Barrett; R J Stock; B J Monk; J S Berek; L Souhami; P Grigsby; W Gordon; D S Alberts Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael R Folkert; Karin K Shih; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Elizabeth Jewell; Marisa A Kollmeier; Vicky Makker; Richard R Barakat; Kaled M Alektiar Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Nisha Bansal; Thomas J Herzog; Richard E Shaw; William M Burke; Israel Deutsch; Jason D Wright Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 8.661
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