Robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a meta-analysis

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy vs. Robotic assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

Following compelling evidence that open techniques may be related to better survival and disease free survival rates, many gynecologic oncologists in the US have turned away from performing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. While this may be warranted as a safety concern, there is little high-quality data on the head-to-head comparison of LRH and RRH and therefore little evidence to answer the question of where this decrease in patient survival is originating from. In our systematic review, we aimed to compare the complications and outcomes of LRH against those of RRH.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from database inception until February 1st, 2022.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

A total of 676 studies were identified and screened through a manual three-step process. Ultimately 33 studies were included in our final analysis. We included all studies that compared LRH and RRH and included at least one of our selected outcomes. We included retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control, and randomized clinical trials.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data was independently extracted manually by multiple observers and the analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. PRISMA guidelines were followed. We analyzed homogenous data using a fixed-effects model, while a random-effects model was used for heterogeneous outcomes. We found that following RRH, women had a decreased hospital stay (MD = 0.80[0.38,1.21],(P < 0.002). We found no differences in estimated blood loss (MD = 35.24[-0.40,70.89],(P = 0.05), blood transfusion rate ((OR = 1.32[0.86,2.02],(P = 0.20), rate of post-operative complications (OR = 0.84[0.60,1.17],(P = 0.30), the operative time (MD = 6.01[-4.64,16.66],(P = 0.27), number of resected lymph node (MD = -1.22[-3.28,0.84],(P = 0.25) intraoperative complications (OR = 0.78[0.51,1.19],(P = 0.25), five-year overall survival (OR = 1.37[0.51,3.69],(P = 0.53), lifetime disease free survival (OR = 0.89[0.59,1.32],(P = 0.55), intraoperative and postoperative mortality (within 30 days) (OR = 1.30[0.66,2.54],(P = 0.44), and recurrence (OR = 1.14[0.79,1.64],(P = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

RRH seems to result in the patient leaving the hospital sooner after surgery. We were unable to find any differences in our ten other outcomes related to complications or efficacy. These findings suggest that the decreased survival seen in minimally invasive RH in previous studies could be due to factors inherent to both LRH and RRH.

PROSPERO PROSPECTIVE REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022273727.

The incidence of perioperative lymphatic complications after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy between robotic and laparoscopic approach : a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although many studies have reported perioperative complications after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection using robotic and laparoscopic approaches, the risk of perioperative lymphatic complications has not been well identified. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the risks of perioperative lymphatic complications after robotic radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection (RRHND) with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection (LRHND) for early uterine cervical cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases for studies published up to July 2022 comparing perioperative lymphatic complications after RRHND and LRHND while treating early uterine cervical cancer. Related articles and bibliographies of relevant studies were also checked. Two reviewers independently performed the data extraction.

RESULTS

A total of 19 eligible clinical trials (15 retrospective studies and 4 prospective studies) comprising 3079 patients were included in this analysis. Only 107 patients (3.48%) had perioperative lymphatic complications, of which the most common was lymphedema ( n =57, 1.85%), followed by symptomatic lymphocele ( n =30, 0.97%), and lymphorrhea ( n =15, 0.49%). When all studies were pooled, the odds ratio for the risk of any lymphatic complication after RRHND compared with LRHND was 1.27 (95% CI: 0.86-1.89; P =0.230). In the subgroup analysis, study quality, country of research, and publication year were not associated with perioperative lymphatic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

A meta-analysis of the available current literature suggests that RRHND is not superior to LRHND in terms of perioperative lymphatic complications.

Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy

Purpose

Radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Studies have shown superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, but peri- and postoperative complication rates were shown vice versa. This meta-analysis evaluates the peri- and postoperative morbidities and complications of robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared to open surgery.

Methods

Embase and Ovid-Medline databases were systematically searched in June 2020 for studies comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy. There was no limitation in publication year. Inclusion criteria were set analogue to the LACC trial. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the operative technique, the study design and the date of publication for the endpoints intra- and postoperative morbidity, estimated blood loss, hospital stay and operation time.

Results

27 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between robotic radical hysterectomy (RH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) concerning intra- and perioperative complications. Operation time was longer in both RH (mean difference 44.79 min [95% CI 38.16; 51.42]), and LH (mean difference 20.96 min; [95% CI − 1.30; 43.22]) than in open hysterectomy (AH) but did not lead to a rise of intra- and postoperative complications. Intraoperative morbidity was lower in LH than in AH (RR 0.90 [0.80; 1.02]) as well as in RH compared to AH (0.54 [0.33; 0.88]). Intraoperative morbidity showed no difference between LH and RH (RR 1.29 [0.23; 7.29]). Postoperative morbidity was not different in any approach. Estimated blood loss was lower in both LH (mean difference − 114.34 [− 122.97; − 105.71]) and RH (mean difference − 287.14 [− 392.99; − 181.28]) compared to AH, respectively. Duration of hospital stay was shorter for LH (mean difference − 3.06 [− 3.28; − 2.83]) and RH (mean difference − 3.77 [− 5.10; − 2.44]) compared to AH.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy appears to be associated with reduced intraoperative morbidity and blood loss and improved reconvalescence after surgery. Besides oncological and surgical factors these results should be considered when counseling patients for radical hysterectomy and underscore the need for new randomized trials.

Protective operative techniques in radical hysterectomy in early cervical carcinoma and their influence on disease-free and overall survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk groups

Purpose

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy presents the standard treatment for early cervical cancer. Recently, studies have shown a superior oncological outcome for open versus minimal invasive surgery, however, the reasons remain to be speculated. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to open hysterectomy. Risk groups including the use of uterine manipulators or colpotomy were created.

Methods

Ovid-Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched in June 2020. No limitation in date of publication or country was made. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding the surgical approach and the endpoints OS and DFS.

Results

30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five prospective, randomized-control trials were included. Patients were analyzed concerning the surgical approach [open surgery (AH), laparoscopic surgery (LH), robotic surgery (RH)]. Additionally, three subgroups were created from the LH group: the LH high-risk group (manipulator), intermediate-risk group (no manipulator, intracorporal colpotomy) and LH low-risk group (no manipulator, vaginal colpotomy). Regarding OS, the meta-analysis showed inferiority of LH in total over AH (0.97 [0.96; 0.98]). The OS was significantly higher in LH low risk (0.96 [0.94; 0.98) compared to LH intermediate risk (0.93 [0.91; 0.94]). OS rates were comparable in AH and LH Low-risk group. DFS was higher in the AH group compared to the LH group in general (0.92 [95%-CI 0.88; 0.95] vs. 0.87 [0.82; 0.91]), whereas the application of protective measures (no uterine manipulator in combination with vaginal colpotomy) was associated with increased DFS in laparoscopy (0.91 [0.91; 0.95]).

Conclusion

DFS and OS in laparoscopy appear to be depending on surgical technique. Protective operating techniques in laparoscopy result in improved minimal invasive survival.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-021-06082-y.

Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to compare survival outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS) between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in patients with cervical cancer.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Google scholar, and the Cochrane library for studies published between December 2004 and May 2020. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two researchers independently extracted the data. Studies with survival outcome information were included.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 36 eligible clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the hazard ratio (HR) of LRH for the risk of DFS and overall survival (OS) compared with ARH was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.41; p = .001; I² = 37.5%) and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.04-1.56; p = .020; I² = 45.5%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, significant harmful effects of DFS in patients with LRH increased in studies using the HR presented by the article (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.64; p <.001), matched retrospective design (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.19-1.88; p = .001), large-scale studies (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16-1.55; p <.001), and studies published after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.25-1.71; p <.001). However, LRH did not affect DFS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.59-1.81; p = .898) or OS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.31-1.05; p = .073) of patients with cervical cancer with cervical masses <2 cm.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LRH was associated with higher recurrence rates than ARH. However, LRH showed similar recurrence and OS among patients with cervical masses <2 cm (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 42020191713).

Impact of the Learning Curve on the Survival of Abdominal or Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Purpose

The objective of this study was to define the learning curve required to attain satisfactory oncologic outcomes of cervical cancer patients who were undergoing open or minimally invasive surgery for radical hysterectomy, and to analyze the correlation between the learning curve and tumor size.

Materials and Methods

Cervical cancer patients (stage IA–IIA) who underwent open radical hysterectomy (n=280) or minimal invasive radical hysterectomy (n=282) were retrospectively reviewed. The learning curve was evaluated using cumulative sum of 5-year recurrence rates. Survival outcomes were analyzed based on the operation period (“learning period,” P1 vs. “skilled period,” P2), operation mode, and tumor size.

Results

The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates between open and minimally invasive groups were 91.8% and 89.0% (p=0.098) and 96.1% and 97.2% (p=0.944), respectively. The number of surgeries for learning period was 30 and 60 in open and minimally invasive group, respectively. P2 had better 5-year disease-free survival than P1 after adjusting for risk factors (hazard ratio, 0.392; 95% confidence interval, 0.210 to 0.734; p=0.003). All patients with tumors < 2 cm had similar 5-year disease-free survival regardless of operation mode or learning curve. Minimally invasive group presented lower survival rates than open group when tumors ≥ 2 cm in P2. Preoperative conization improved disease-free survival in patients with tumors ≥ 2 cm, especially in minimally invasive group.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy required more cases than open group to achieve acceptable 5-year disease-free survival. When tumors ≥ 2 cm, the surgeon’s proficiency affected survival outcomes in both groups.

Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Radical Hysterectomy (RRH) for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Experience at a Referral Cancer Center

PURPOSE

To evaluate oncologic outcomes of early stage cervical cancer patients who underwent robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) in a referral center, a retrospective analysis was performed.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2018, medical records of stage IA2-IIA1 cervical cancer patients, who underwent radical hysterectomy at our institute, were retrospectively reviewed. We focused our analysis on those who underwent RRH.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients were included in the final analysis. Median follow up was 52 months. At last follow-up, 188 (94.9%) women were disease-free, 9 (4.5%) had died, and 1 (0.5%) was alive with recurrent disease. At 4.5 years, PFS was 93.1% (SE ± 2.1) and OS was 95.1% (SE ± 1.8). Stratified by tumor size, PFS for tumor < 2 cm versus tumor ≥ 2 cm was statistically different (96.8% ± 2.3 and 87.9% ± 4.1 respectively, p = 0.01), as well as OS (100% and 89.8% ± 40 respectively, p = 0.01).Stratified by evidence of tumor at time of robotic surgery, PFS was statistically different in women with no residual tumor after conisation versus those with residual disease (100% ± 2.5 and 90.8% ± 2.8 respectively, p = 0.04). A recurrence occurred in 11 patients (5.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results, we could speculate that robotic approach, along with some technical precautions to avoid spillage, might be safe as primary treatment of early-stage cervical cancer, especially for tumor < 2 cm and in case of no evidence of disease at time of radical hysterectomy after previous conisation.

Choosing the most appropriate minimally invasive approach to treat gynecologic cancers in the context of an enhanced recovery program: Insights from a comprehensive cancer center

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare the characteristics of procedures for gynecologic cancers conducted with conventional laparoscopy (CL) or robotically assisted laparoscopy (RAL) in the context of an enhanced recovery program (ERP).

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from a cohort study conducted between 2016 (when the ERP was first implemented at the Institut Paoli-Calmettes, a comprehensive cancer center in France) and 2018. We included patients who had undergone minimally invasive surgery for gynecological cancers and followed our ERP. The endpoints were the analysis of postoperative complications, the length of postoperative hospitalization (LPO), and the proportion of combined procedures depending on the approach (RAL or CL). Combined procedures were defined by the association of at least two of the following operative items: hysterectomy, pelvic lymphadenectomy, and para-aortic lymphadenectomy.

Results

A total of 362 women underwent either CL (n = 187) or RAL (n = 175) for gynecologic cancers and followed our ERP. The proportion of combined procedures performed by RAL was significantly higher (85/175 [48.6%]) than that performed by CL (23/187 [12.3%]; p < 0.001). The proportions of postoperative complications were similar between the two groups (19.4% versus 17.1%; p = 0.59). Logistic regression analysis revealed a statistically insignificant trend in the association of RAL with a reduced likelihood of an LPO > 3 days after adjusting for predictors of prolonged hospitalization (adjusted OR = 0.573 [0.236–1.388]; p = 0.217).

Conclusion

Experts from our cancer center preferentially choose RAL to perform gynecologic oncological procedures that present elements of complexity. More studies are needed to determine whether this strategy is efficient in managing complex procedures in the framework of an ERP.

Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: A separate meta-analysis of high-quality studies

BACKGROUND

To perform a meta-analysis of high-quality studies comparing robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH), and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) for the treatment of cervical cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed to identify studies that compared RRH with LRH or ORH. The selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies was based on a validated tool (methodologic index for nonrandomized studies) since no randomized controlled trials have been published. Outcomes of interest included conversion rate, operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, mortality, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLNs), and long-term oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve studies assessing RRH vs LRH or ORH were included for this meta-analysis. In comparison with LRH, there was no difference in operation time, EBL, conversion rate, intraoperative or postoperative complications, LOS, and tumor recurrence (P > .05). Compared with ORH, patients underwent RRH had less EBL (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -322.59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -502.75 to -142.43, P < .01), a lower transfusion rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.34, P < .01), and shorter LOS (WMD = -2.71 days; 95% CI: -3.74 to -1.68, P < .01). There was no significant difference between RRH and LRH with respect to the operation time, intraoperative or postoperative complications, RLN, and tumor recurrence (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that RRH is safe and effective compared to its laparoscopic and open counterpart and provides favorable outcomes in postoperative recovery.

Evidence for the use of robotically assisted surgery in gynecologic cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robotically assisted laparoscopy has been introduced in the armamentarium of gynaecologic oncology surgeons. A lot of studies compared robotic surgery and laparotomy when the real issue is to demonstrate the interest and added value of robotically assisted laparoscopy versus standard laparoscopy. In this review, we will describe the most meaningful indications and advantages of robotically assisted laparoscopy in gynaecologic oncology.

RECENT FINDINGS

The learning curve for advanced procedures in robot-assisted laparoscopy is shorter and easier than with the standard laparoscopy, especially for beginners. In most of the series, operating time is longer with robot, but complication rates are often decreased, especially in obese patients with a conversion rate to laparotomy that is decreased compared with standard laparoscopy. Robot-assisted laparoscopy can be used for surgery of high-risk endometrial cancer, staging of early-ovarian cancer, and pelvic exenteration in case of recurrent malignancies. Furthermore, more recent robots allow performing sentinel node biopsy in endometrial or cervical cancer using fluorescence detection with indocyanine green.

SUMMARY

The spreading of robotic surgery led to an enhancement of minimal invasive surgical approach in general, and to the development of new indications in gynaecologic oncology. The superiority of robot-assisted laparoscopy still has to be demonstrated with properly designed trials.

Robot-assisted Surgery in Gynecologic Cancers

Robotic-assisted surgery is a technological advancement that facilitates the application of minimally invasive techniques for complex operations in gynecologic oncology. The objective of this article was to review the literature regarding the role of robotic-assisted surgery to treat women with gynecologic cancers. The majority of publications on robotic surgery are still retrospective or descriptive in nature; however, the data for managing patients with a robotic-assisted approach show comparable, and at times improved, outcomes compared with both laparoscopy (2-dimensional) and laparotomy approaches. Robotic-assisted surgery has been used for patients with endometrial cancer and resulted in the increased use of minimally invasive surgery with improved outcomes compared with laparotomy and partially with laparoscopy. This has been shown in large cohorts of patients as well as in obese patients in whom the complication rates have significantly decreased. For early cervical cancer, robotic radical hysterectomy seems to be safe and feasible and to be preferable to laparotomy with seemingly comparable oncologic outcomes. Robotic-assisted surgery and conventional laparoscopy to stage women with early-stage ovarian cancer seem to have similar surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a shorter learning curve for robotic-assisted surgery. However, robotic-assisted surgery appears to be more expensive than laparotomy and traditional laparoscopy. In conclusion, robotic-assisted surgery appears to facilitate the surgical approach for complex operations to treat women with gynecologic cancers. Although randomized controlled trials are lacking to further elucidate the equivalence of robot-assisted surgery with conventional methods in terms of oncologic outcome and patients' quality of life, the technology appears to be safe and effective and could offer a minimally invasive approach to a much larger group of patients.

Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancers: a systematic review

Total and radical hysterectomies are the most common treatment strategies for early-stage endometrial and cervical cancers, respectively. Surgical modalities include open surgery, laparoscopy, and more recently, minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery. We searched several electronic databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with a comparison group, published between 2009 and 2014. Our outcomes of interest included both perioperative and morbidity outcomes. We included 35 observational studies in this review. We did not find any randomized controlled trials. The quality of evidence for all reported outcomes was very low. For women with endometrial cancer, we found that there was a reduction in estimated blood loss between the robot-assisted surgery compared to both laparoscopy and open surgery. There was a reduction in length of hospital stay between robot-assisted surgery and open surgery but not laparoscopy. There was no difference in total lymph node removal between the three modalities. There was no difference in the rate of overall complications between the robot-assisted technique and laparoscopy. For women with cervical cancer, there were no differences in estimated blood loss or removal of lymph nodes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic procedure. Compared to laparotomy, robot-assisted hysterectomy for cervical cancer showed an overall reduction in estimated blood loss. Although robot-assisted hysterectomy is clinically effective for the treatment of both endometrial and cervical cancers, methodologically rigorous studies are lacking to draw definitive conclusions.

Robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative outcomes between robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of endometrial cancer by conducting a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE up to January 8, 2016. Studies clearly documenting a comparison between RAS and CLS for patients with endometrial cancer were included. The perioperative outcomes of interest included intraoperative visceral injuries, postoperative complications, operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, total lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) were pooled with either a fixed-effects or a random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies were included in the analysis, involving 3056 patients. The pooled analysis showed that RAS was associated with lower EBL (WMD -77.65; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -105.58 to -49.72), lower conversion rate (OR 0.29; 95 % CI 0.18-0.46), and shorter hospital stay (WMD -0.48; 95 % CI -0.70 to -0.26) compared to CLS. The incidence of intraoperative visceral injuries, operation time, transfusion rate, and TLNH showed no significant differences between RAS and CLS.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS is a feasible and effective surgical approach that may be superior to CLS for the treatment of endometrial cancer, with lower EBL and lower conversion rate. Further prospective randomized trials are required to validate our findings.