Koji Matsuo1, Shinya Matsuzaki2, Rachel S Mandelbaum2, Hiroyuki Kanao3, Erica J Chang2, Maximilian Klar4, Lynda D Roman5, Jason D Wright6. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: koji.matsuo@med.usc.edu. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 5. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine characteristics and short-term perioperative outcomes related to minimally invasive pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancy. METHODS: This comparative effectiveness study is a retrospective population-based analysis of the National Inpatient Sample from 10/2008-9/2015. Women with cervical, uterine, vaginal, and vulvar malignancies who underwent pelvic exenteration were evaluated based on the use of laparoscopic or robotic-assisted surgery. Patient demographics and intraoperative/postoperative complications related to a minimally invasive surgical approach were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1376 women who underwent pelvic exenteration, 49 (3.6%) had the procedure performed via a minimally invasive approach. The majority of minimally invasive cases were robotic-assisted (51.0%). Women in the minimally invasive group were more likely to be old, white, have cervical/uterine cancers, and receive urinary diversion, but less frequently received vaginal reconstruction or colostomy when compared to those in the open surgery group (P < 0.05). Overall perioperative complication rates were similar between the minimally invasive and open surgery groups (79.6% versus 77.7%, P = 0.862), but the minimally invasive group had a decreased risk of high-risk complications compared to the open surgery group (adjusted-odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.51). Specifically, a minimally invasive approach was associated with decreased incidence of sepsis and thromboembolism compared to an open approach (P < 0.05). The minimally invasive group had a shorter length of stay (median, 9 versus 14 days) and lower total charge (median, $127,875 versus $208,591) compared to the open surgery group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Laparotomy remains the main surgical approach for pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancy and minimally invasive surgery was infrequently utilized during the study period in the United States. Before widely adopting this surgical approach, the utility and role of minimally invasive pelvic exenteration requires further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: To examine characteristics and short-term perioperative outcomes related to minimally invasive pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancy. METHODS: This comparative effectiveness study is a retrospective population-based analysis of the National Inpatient Sample from 10/2008-9/2015. Women with cervical, uterine, vaginal, and vulvar malignancies who underwent pelvic exenteration were evaluated based on the use of laparoscopic or robotic-assisted surgery. Patient demographics and intraoperative/postoperative complications related to a minimally invasive surgical approach were assessed. RESULTS: Among 1376 women who underwent pelvic exenteration, 49 (3.6%) had the procedure performed via a minimally invasive approach. The majority of minimally invasive cases were robotic-assisted (51.0%). Women in the minimally invasive group were more likely to be old, white, have cervical/uterine cancers, and receive urinary diversion, but less frequently received vaginal reconstruction or colostomy when compared to those in the open surgery group (P < 0.05). Overall perioperative complication rates were similar between the minimally invasive and open surgery groups (79.6% versus 77.7%, P = 0.862), but the minimally invasive group had a decreased risk of high-risk complications compared to the open surgery group (adjusted-odds ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.51). Specifically, a minimally invasive approach was associated with decreased incidence of sepsis and thromboembolism compared to an open approach (P < 0.05). The minimally invasive group had a shorter length of stay (median, 9 versus 14 days) and lower total charge (median, $127,875 versus $208,591) compared to the open surgery group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Laparotomy remains the main surgical approach for pelvic exenteration for gynecologic malignancy and minimally invasive surgery was infrequently utilized during the study period in the United States. Before widely adopting this surgical approach, the utility and role of minimally invasive pelvic exenteration requires further investigation.