Literature DB >> 27628448

A comparison of robot-assisted and traditional radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer.

M Patrick Lowe1,2, Anna V Hoekstra3, Arati Jairam-Thodla3, Diljeet K Singh3, Barbara M Buttin3, John R Lurain3, Julian C Schink3.   

Abstract

A robotics surgery program was introduced into the division of gynecologic oncology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in June 2007. A prospective database of all patients undergoing a type III radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer between July 2007 and June 2008 was collected and analyzed. Demographic data and perioperative outcomes were analyzed between a traditional and robot-assisted approach. A total of 14 patients were identified who underwent a type III radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer. Seven patients underwent robotic surgery and seven patients underwent traditional surgery. There were no significant differences in median age or body mass index between the two groups. A significant difference in blood loss between robotic (75 cc) and traditional (700 cc) surgery was detected (P = 0.002). A significant difference in hospital stay between robotic (1 day) and traditional (5 days) surgery was observed (P = 0.0007). No significant difference in operative time (260 vs. 264 min) or lymph node yield (19 and 14) was identified between the robotic and traditional approaches. No major operative complications occurred with robotic radical hysterectomy. Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss and hospital stay. Improved nodal yields, fewer operative complications, and less pain was observed with the robotic approach. Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy appears safe and feasible and further investigation is warranted in a prospective fashion.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; Gynecologic oncology; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery; Radical hysterectomy; Robotic radical hysterectomy; Robotics; Surgical techniques; da Vinci

Year:  2009        PMID: 27628448     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-009-0131-0

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


  24 in total

1.  Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy and vaginal or laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for endometrial cancer: morbidity and survival.

Authors:  J F Magrina; N F Mutone; A L Weaver; P M Magtibay; R S Fowler; J L Cornella
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Robotic radical hysterectomy.

Authors:  James Fanning; Bradford Fenton; Manisha Purohit
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Cost and quality-of-life analyses of surgery for early endometrial cancer: laparotomy versus laparoscopy.

Authors:  N M Spirtos; J B Schlaerth; G M Gross; T W Spirtos; A C Schlaerth; S C Ballon
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (Piver type III) with pelvic node dissection--case report.

Authors:  B M Sert; V M Abeler
Journal:  Eur J Gynaecol Oncol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 0.196

5.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience.

Authors:  R Kevin Reynolds; Arnold P Advincula
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.565

6.  Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer: 8-year experience of a pilot study.

Authors:  Christophe Pomel; David Atallah; Guillaume Le Bouedec; Roman Rouzier; Philippe Morice; Damienne Castaigne; Jacques Dauplat
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.482

7.  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

8.  Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot.

Authors:  C Diaz-Arrastia; C Jurnalov; G Gomez; C Townsend
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-06-27       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  Michael Frumovitz; Ricardo dos Reis; Charlotte C Sun; Michael R Milam; Michael W Bevers; Jubilee Brown; Brian M Slomovitz; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer.

Authors:  Farr R Nezhat; M Shoma Datta; Connie Liu; Linus Chuang; Konstantin Zakashansky
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2008 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Robot-assisted surgery:--impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  O E O'Sullivan; B A O'Reilly
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Comparison of a novel surgical approach for radical hysterectomy: robotic assistance versus open surgery.

Authors:  Gerald Feuer; Benedict Benigno; Lindal Krige; Patricia Alvarez
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2009-10-09

3.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: case report and proposed training model.

Authors:  Alexis Sánchez; Omaira Rodríguez; Hugo Davila; Rair Valero; Gustavo Benítez; Renata Sánchez; Maria F Visconti
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-12-30

4.  Preemptive multimodal analgesia facilitates same-day discharge following robot-assisted hysterectomy.

Authors:  Thomas M Shultz
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-05-28
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.