Literature DB >> 27812904

Clinical comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy procedures for endometrial cancer patients.

Lynette Johnson1, W Douglas Bunn2, Loan Nguyen3, Jessica Rice4, Minakshi Raj5, Mary J Cunningham2.   

Abstract

The goal of this study was to compare outcomes for robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy procedures for endometrial cancer as well as to investigate whether specific patient demographic, comorbidity, and severity variables were associated with the type of hysterectomy performed. A retrospective review was conducted of hysterectomy procedures for patients discharged from October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2012. Preoperative characteristics included age, BMI, number of past abdominal surgeries, and comorbidities. Intraoperative and postoperative characteristics included uterine weight and diameter, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, lymph-vascular space involvement, FIGO stage and tumor grade. Outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, conversion to open, other intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmissions within 30 days and lymph node yield. The robotic and laparoscopic cohorts show no significant differences in patient or tumor characteristics, while the open cases represent patients with increased complexity. In general, laparoscopic cases were shorter than robotic and open cases. Laparoscopic cases had fewer conversions to open than robotic cases. Robotic and open cases had significantly higher lymph node yield than laparoscopic cases. The reduction in surgical time and conversion rates in the laparoscopic cohort may be related to the reduction in node dissection performed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endometrial cancer; Hysterectomy; Laparoscopic; Robotic

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27812904     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-016-0651-3

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


  13 in total

1.  Predictors of successful surgical outcome in laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Andries R Twijnstra; Mathijs D Blikkendaal; Erik W van Zwet; Paul J M van Kesteren; Cor D de Kroon; Frank Willem Jansen
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 2.  Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies.

Authors:  Dimitri Sarlos; LaVonne A Kots
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.927

Review 3.  Robot-assisted hysterectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michelle O'Neill; Patrick S Moran; Conor Teljeur; Orfhlaith E O'Sullivan; Barry A O'Reilly; Matt Hewitt; Martin Flattery; Máirín Ryan
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 2.344

4.  Current Role of Robotic Hysterectomy.

Authors:  Brent Dubeshter; Cynthia Angel; Eugene Toy; Sajeena Thomas; J Christopher Glantz
Journal:  J Gynecol Surg       Date:  2013-08

5.  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

Review 6.  Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.

Authors:  Rajiv B Gala; Rebecca Margulies; Adam Steinberg; Miles Murphy; James Lukban; Peter Jeppson; Sarit Aschkenazi; Cedric Olivera; Mary South; Lior Lowenstein; Joseph Schaffer; Ethan M Balk; Vivian Sung
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 4.137

7.  Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Thomas J Herzog; Jennifer Tsui; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Complications in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery according to case type: a 6-year retrospective cohort study using Clavien-Dindo classification.

Authors:  Mary Ellen Wechter; Jasmine Mohd; Javier F Magrina; Jeffrey L Cornella; Paul M Magtibay; Jeffrey R Wilson; Rosanne M Kho
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2014-03-31       Impact factor: 4.137

9.  Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: Robotics or laparoscopy?

Authors:  Leigh G Seamon; David E Cohn; Melissa S Henretta; Kenneth H Kim; Matthew J Carlson; Gary S Phillips; Jeffrey M Fowler
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-01-24       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  R H van der Schatte Olivier; C D P Van't Hullenaar; J P Ruurda; I A M J Broeders
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  6 in total

1.  The impact of complete embedding of remaining tissue in gynecological lymph node dissection specimen in surgical pathology on lymph node yield: is it clinically relevant?

Authors:  Julia Andruszkow; Ivo Meinhold-Heerlein; Brigitte Winkler; Benjamin Bruno; Ruth Knüchel; Jörg Jäkel
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2018-04-28       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of stage I endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Peter A Argenta; Jordan Mattson; Colleen L Rivard; Elizabeth Luther; Alexandra Schefter; Rachel I Vogel
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 5.304

Review 3.  Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology-The Future Is Here.

Authors:  Roy Lauterbach; Emad Matanes; Lior Lowenstein
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2017-04-28

4.  A Meta-Analysis of Robotic Surgery in Endometrial Cancer: Comparison with Laparoscopy and Laparotomy.

Authors:  Jia Wang; Xiaomao Li; Haotian Wu; Yu Zhang; Fei Wang
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 3.434

Review 5.  The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Marco Milone; Michele Manigrasso; Pietro Anoldo; Anna D'Amore; Ugo Elmore; Mariano Cesare Giglio; Gianluca Rompianesi; Sara Vertaldi; Roberto Ivan Troisi; Nader K Francis; Giovanni Domenico De Palma
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-02-18

Review 6.  A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Thomas Ind; Alex Laios; Matthew Hacking; Marielle Nobbenhuis
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 2.547

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.