Literature DB >> 27628275

Robotic-assisted gynecologic/oncologic surgery: experience of early cases in a Saudi Arabian tertiary care facility.

Ismail A Al-Badawi1, Murad Al-Aker2, Jamal Al-Subhi2, Ibtihal Bukhari2, Osama Al-Omar2, Sarfraz Ahmad3.   

Abstract

We report early experience of a case-mix series of robotic-assisted (RA) gynecologic/oncologic surgery in an Arabian population from a tertiary care facility, and discuss the emergence/growth of robotic surgery in the Arab world (Middle East). From December 2005 to December 2010, 60 consecutive patients [benign with complex pathology (BN, n = 34) and 26 cases with various malignancies; i.e., endometrial cancer (EC, n = 13), ovarian cancer (OC, n = 4), cervical cancer (CC, n = 1), and other cancers (OTH, n = 8), underwent RA procedures for the diagnosis/treatment/management of gynecologic/oncologic diseases at a single institution using the da Vinci(®) Surgical System. Data were analyzed for demographics, clinico-pathologic and peri/post-operative factors using intent-to-treat analysis. Despite continuous growth in the number of cases performed each year, the establishment of the robotic surgery program at our institution has been rather challenging due to patient acceptance, public awareness, and administrative resistance. The mean age of the case-mix was 43 ± 15 years (distribution: BN 39 ± 14, EC 61 ± 6, OC 36 ± 15, CC 50, OTH 41 ± 12 years). The body mass index for the case-mix was 30.3 ± 6.9 kg/m(2) (distribution: BN 29.7 ± 6.2, EC 34.0 ± 3.6, OC 20.0 ± 1.7, CC 48, OTH 30.2 ± 6.2 kg/m(2)). The histology of most EC cases was endometrioid adenocarcinoma. The mean operative time was case-mix 95 ± 43, BN 77 ± 26, EC 156 ± 30, OC 80 ± 35, CC 150, OTH 79 ± 23 min. Mean blood loss was case-mix 126, BN 129, EC 177, OC 67, CC 50, OTH 71 min. Two cases (3.3%) were converted to laparotomy (one each in EC and BN groups). Mean hospital length of stay was 2 days. Four cases (6.7%) experienced complications. Only 4/26 (15.4%) of cancer cases required adjuvant therapy. The data suggest that RA gynecologic/oncologic procedures are feasible and satisfactory to our Arabian patient population and comparable to the existing literature for Caucasian counterparts. We believe this report is the first (and perhaps largest) case-mix series on the early experience of RA surgery for gynecologic/oncologic cases from the Middle East.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arabian population; Clinico-pathologic outcomes; Complications; Gynecologic procedures; Hysterectomy; Middle-Eastern gynecologic cancer patients; Robotic-assisted surgery

Year:  2011        PMID: 27628275     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-011-0278-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  22 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted salpingostomy for ectopic pregnancy.

Authors:  Ismail A Al-Badawi; Murad Al-Aker; Togas Tulandi
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2010-07

2.  A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.

Authors:  Ricardo Estape; Nicholas Lambrou; Robert Diaz; Eric Estape; Natalie Dunkin; Angel Rivera
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-04-05       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 3.  Emergence of robotic assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: American perspective.

Authors:  Alberto Mendivil; Robert W Holloway; John F Boggess
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 4.  Robotic surgery in gynecology.

Authors:  R W Holloway; S D Patel; S Ahmad
Journal:  Scand J Surg       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.360

5.  Robotic-assisted ovarian transposition before radiation.

Authors:  Ismail Al-Badawi; Murad Al-Aker; Togas Tulandi
Journal:  Surg Technol Int       Date:  2010-04

6.  Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques.

Authors:  Maria C Bell; Jenny Torgerson; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden; Allison Wierda Suttle; Sharon Hunt
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution.

Authors:  Emily M Ko; Michael G Muto; Ross S Berkowitz; Colleen M Feltmate
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Perioperative outcomes of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign cases with complex pathology.

Authors:  John F Boggess; Paola A Gehrig; Leigh Cantrell; Aaron Shafer; Alberto Mendivil; Emma Rossi; Rabbie Hanna
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study.

Authors:  Angelo Maggioni; Lucas Minig; Vanna Zanagnolo; Michele Peiretti; Fabio Sanguineti; Luca Bocciolone; Nicoletta Colombo; Fabio Landoni; Giovanni Roviglione; Jorge Ivan Vélez
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.