Literature DB >> 27628276

Magnetic resonance or computerized tomography imaging to predict difficulty of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer.

Michael A Finan1, Jewel A Harris2, Andrew M Fisher2, Kevin Bradley2, Heidi Henslee2, Rodney P Rocconi3.   

Abstract

To determine if the difficulty of a robotic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer can be predicted by MRI, CT or other methods. All robotic cases from 1 August 2006 through 30 July 2009 were identified. Data collected prospectively included co-morbidities, body mass index, surgical times, estimated blood loss (EBL), uterine weight, and pre- and postoperative complications. Those patients who received an MRI or CT scan prior to robotic hysterectomy had additional data gathered from imaging, including uterine volume, pelvic measurements and abdominal wall thickness. Cases were labeled difficult for the following reasons: outliers greater than 2 SD from the mean EBL, hysterectomy time and total console time. Additional factors identifying difficult cases included the need to undock to remove the specimen or conversion to laparotomy. Data were analyzed for their possible role in causing difficulty in a robotic hysterectomy. Comparative statistics utilized included chi-square and t-test, ANOVA and logistic regression analysis.From 2 August 2006 through 30 July 2009, 119 patients underwent robotic surgery for endometrial cancer and are included in this study. Of these patients, 25/119 (20.0%) were identified as difficult cases. Difficulty was found in those patients with greater than 2 SD from the mean for hysterectomy time, >90.9 min (n = 3, 2.5%), total console time of >178.1 min (n = 6, 5.0%), EBL >232 cc (n = 7, 5.9%) and undocking to remove the uterine specimen in 8 (6.7%) cases; 1/119 (0.8%) was converted to laparotomy. Lymphadenectomy (P = 0.005) was associated with case difficulty. In a logistic regression analysis CT/MRI measurements of uterine volume greater than 793 cm³ and CT/MRI pelvimetry, as well as abdominal wall thickness were independent predictors of a difficult case (P = 0.0116). MRI and CT scans can detect the probability that a robotic surgery will be difficult by determining uterine volume and pelvimetry; however, these were not the strongest predictors in our study. A narrow pelvic outlet as measured on CT/MRI and uterine volume of greater than 793 cc should raise a flag of caution when planning robotic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computerized tomography; Conversion; Hysterectomy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Obesity; Predictors of difficult case; Robotic surgery

Year:  2011        PMID: 27628276     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-011-0281-8

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


  14 in total

1.  [MRI of intra-abdominal fat and HIV-associated lipodystrophy: a case review].

Authors:  R Y Carlier; P De Truchis; S Ronze; D Mompoint; C Vallée; J C Melchior
Journal:  J Radiol       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug

2.  Automated and reproducible segmentation of visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue from abdominal MRI.

Authors:  J Kullberg; H Ahlström; L Johansson; H Frimmel
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2007-06-26       Impact factor: 5.095

3.  Sagittal diameter in comparison with single slice CT as a predictor of total visceral adipose tissue volume.

Authors:  R E Schoen; F L Thaete; S S Sankey; J L Weissfeld; L H Kuller
Journal:  Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord       Date:  1998-04

4.  What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman?

Authors:  Paola A Gehrig; Leigh A Cantrell; Aaron Shafer; Lisa N Abaid; Alberto Mendivil; John F Boggess
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-08-09       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 5.  Magnetic resonance imaging in gynecological oncology.

Authors:  Vanessa N Harry; Heather Deans; Emma Ramage; David E Parkin; Fiona J Gilbert
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.437

6.  Is it possible to derive a reliable estimate of human visceral and subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue from simple anthropometric measurements?

Authors:  E Bonora; R Micciolo; A A Ghiatas; J L Lancaster; A Alyassin; M Muggeo; R A DeFronzo
Journal:  Metabolism       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 8.694

7.  Robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Leigh G Seamon; David E Cohn; Debra L Richardson; Sue Valmadre; Matthew J Carlson; Gary S Phillips; Jeffrey M Fowler
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Presurgical assessment of intraabdominal visceral fat in obese patients with early-stage endometrial cancer treated with laparoscopic approach: relationships with early laparotomic conversions.

Authors:  Stefano Palomba; Errico Zupi; Tiziana Russo; Rosamaria Oppedisano; Francesco Manguso; Angela Falbo; Achille Tolino; Alberto Mattei; Pasquale Mastrantonio; Fulvio Zullo
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.137

9.  Abdominal wall characterization with magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. The effect of obesity on the laparoscopic approach.

Authors:  W H Hurd; R O Bude; J O DeLancey; J M Gauvin; A M Aisen
Journal:  J Reprod Med       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 0.142

10.  Overcoming technical challenges with robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology.

Authors:  Michael A Finan; Rodney P Rocconi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.