Literature DB >> 27638376

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

Gerald Feuer1, Benedict Benigno2, Lindal Krige2, Patricia Alvarez2.   

Abstract

To report the learning curve and perioperative outcomes for robotic radical hysterectomy using a unilateral surgical approach transferred directly from one surgeon's open radical hysterectomy experience, thirty-two consecutive robotic radical hysterectomy cases (10/2006-1/2009) were contrasted to a cohort of 20 consecutive open radical hysterectomies (2/2005-2/2008). Perioperative characteristics compared included operative time, number of nodes, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications. Robotic operative times were significantly longer than for open (122.1 ± 33.0 versus 67.5 ± 16.2 min, P < 0.0001), but decreased with experience, going from 156.0 min for the first eight robotic cases to 95.0 min for the last eight cases (P < 0.05). Blood loss (99.2 ± 46.2 mL versus 275.0 ± 206.0 mL, P < 0.0001) and length of hospital stay (1.7 versus 5.2 days, P < 0.001) were significantly lower for the robotic cohort. Lymph node yield in the robotic cohort was equivalent to that for the open cohort (11.5 versus 9.2, P = 0.1446), and complication rates were 21.9% for robotic and 30.0% for open radical hysterectomy. Implementing a unilateral approach to maximize surgical efficiency greatly reduced surgical times without compromising patient morbidity, bringing robotic operative times while still within the learning curve close to those for open radical hysterectomy. Thus, robotic radical hysterectomy may soon be considered the preferred standard front-line therapy for cervical cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; Laparotomy; Radical hysterectomy; Robotic assistance; da Vinci surgical system

Year:  2009        PMID: 27638376     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-009-0159-1

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


  25 in total

1.  Clinical-pathologic and morbidity analyses of Types 2 and 3 abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Dirk P Pikaart; Robert W Holloway; Sarfraz Ahmad; Neil J Finkler; Glenn E Bigsby; B Hannah Ortiz; Sara A Denardis
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2007-08-09       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  Robotic radical hysterectomy.

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

3.  Modified radical vaginal hysterectomy with or without laparoscopic nerve-sparing dissection: a comparative study.

Authors:  Denis Querleu; Fabrice Narducci; Valery Poulard; Sophie Lacaze; Bruno Occelli; Eric Leblanc; Michel Cosson
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.482

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.  A comparison of laparascopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.

Authors:  H Steed; B Rosen; J Murphy; S Laframboise; D De Petrillo; A Covens
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2004-06       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.  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

9.  A multi-institutional experience with robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  M Patrick Lowe; Donald H Chamberlain; Scott A Kamelle; Peter R Johnson; Todd D Tillmanns
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-02-26       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type III) with aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with stage I cervical cancer: surgical morbidity and intermediate follow-up.

Authors:  Nick M Spirtos; Scott M Eisenkop; John B Schlaerth; Samuel C Ballon
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 8.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.