Comparison of robotic approach, laparoscopic approach and laparotomy in treating epithelial ovarian cancer

Comparison of recurrence and survival between patients with pathological stage I epithelial ovarian cancer after laparoscopic or laparotomic surgery: retrospective analysis of a propensity-matched cohort

OBJECTIVE

To compare oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic or laparotomic surgery to treat epithelial ovarian carcinoma in FIGO stage I.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Gynecological cancer ward in a tertiary hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 85 patients with FIGO stage I epithelial ovarian carcinoma who underwent laparoscopic staging surgery and 206 who underwent laparotomic staging surgery at West China Second Hospital, Sichuan University (Chengdu, China) between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

laparoscopic surgery or laparotomic staging surgery.

RESULTS

Before propensity score-based matching, the laparotomy group showed higher prevalence of preoperative elevated CA125 level (48.5% vs 35.3%, p = .045) and tumors > 15 cm (27.2% vs 5.9%, p < .001). Multivariate analysis associated higher body mass index with better overall survival (adjusted HR 0.83, 95%CI 0.70-0.99, p = .043). Among propensity score-matched patients (82 per group) who were matched to each other according to propensity scoring based on age, body mass index, CA125 level, largest tumor diameter, FIGO stage, history of abdominal surgery, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, the rate of progression-free survival at 5 years was similar between the laparoscopy group (87.1%, 95%CI 79.3-95.7%) and the laparotomy group (90.9%, 95%CI 84.7-97.6%, p = .524), as was the rate of overall survival at 5 years (93.9%, 95%CI 88.0-100.0% vs 94.7%, 95%CI 89.8-99.9%, p = .900). Regardless of whether patients were matched, the two groups showed similar rates of recurrence of 9-11% during follow-up lasting a median of 54.9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of recurrence and survival may be similar between laparoscopy or laparotomy to treat stage I epithelial ovarian cancer. Since laparoscopy is associated with less bleeding and faster recovery, it may be a safe, effective alternative to laparotomy for appropriate patients.

The role of minimally invasive surgery in gynaecological cancer: an overview of current trends

Background

The capabilities of minimally invasive surgery, either as conventional laparoscopy, or as robotic surgery, have increased to an extent that it enables complex operations in the field of gynaecological oncology.

Objective

To document the role of minimally invasive gynaecological surgery in cancer.

Materials and methods

A review of the literature that shaped international guidelines and clinical practice.

Main outcome measures

Current guidelines of major international scientific associations and trends in accepted clinical practice.

Results

In recent years, evidence on oncologic outcome has limited the role of minimally invasive techniques in cervical cancer, while the treatment of early endometrial cancer with laparoscopy and robotic surgery has become the international standard. In ovarian cancer, the role of minimally invasive surgery is still limited. Current evidence on perioperative morbidity underlines the necessity to implicate minimally invasive techniques whenever possible.

Conclusion

The optimal surgical route for the treatment of gynaecological cancer remains in many cases controversial. The role of minimally invasive surgery remains increasing in the course of time.

What is new?

This comprehensive review offers an entire perspective on the current role of minimally invasive surgery in gynaecological cancer therapy.

Is minimally invasive surgical approach a reasonable option in apparent early stage epithelial ovarian cancer restaging? Results from a multicentric retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

To perform surgical staging of early stage ovarian cancer (EOC), conventional laparoscopy (LS) and robot-assisted laparoscopy (RLS) appear to be reliable procedures compared to open surgery. But oncologicals results with long-term follow up are limited in the literature. The objective of this study is to evaluate the surgical and long-term survival for patients managed by minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a multicentric retrospective study in 6 institutions. All patients referred for epithelial EOC (apparent stage I-IIa) managed with LS and RLS were involved.

RESULTS

From December 2008 to December 2017, 140 patients were included (109 in LS group and 31 in RLS group). A total of 27 (19.2 %) patients were upstaged to an advanced ovarian cancer (FIGO stage > IIA), and 73 % of patients received chemotherapy. Mean operative time was 265,8 ± 88,4 min and significantly longer in RLS group (LS = 254,5 ± 86,8; RLS = 305,6 ± 85,5; p = 0,008). Rate of severe post-operative complications (grade 3) was 5,7 %. Thirteen conversion to laparotomy occurred, including one per-operative hemorrhaege. After a mean follow-up of 60,7 months, 29 (20.7 %) patients recurred, with a time to recurrence was >24 months in 51,7 % of cases. Overall survival (OS) was 88.6 % and disease-free survival (DFS) was 79.3 %. Oncologic outcomes were similar between LS and RLS group (OS: p = 0,504 and DFS: p = 0,213).

CONCLUSION

Surgical staging of EOC by LS or RLS approach has long-term equivalent surgical and oncological approach. These results seem to be equivalent to open surgery according to literature review.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic staging compared to conventional laparoscopic staging and laparotomic staging in clinical early stage ovarian carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robot-assisted laparoscopic staging (RALS) is increasingly used for staging epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Evidence of its safety is limited. The aim of this review is to compare the efficacy and safety of RALS in clinical early-stage EOC to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy and to assess the level of evidence that is currently available to adopt this surgical technique.

RECENT FINDINGS

Only retrospective studies comparing staging by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to laparotomy are available. Both RALS and conventional laparoscopic staging shorten length of hospital stay (LHS, mean -2.9 days) and decrease estimated blood loss (EBL, mean -79 ml less) compared to laparotomy. Complication rates and number of lymph nodes collected are similar in all surgical staging techniques. Survival outcomes after staging by MIS cannot be compared to staging by laparotomy because of the lack of evidence but RALS is probably noninferior to conventional laparoscopic staging.

SUMMARY

RALS probably improves perioperative outcomes in patients with clinical early stage EOC similar to conventional laparoscopic staging. Whether oncologic outcomes of RALS are comparable to open and conventional approaches is uncertain as there is only level C evidence and randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm the current retrospective findings.

Survey of current practices and opinions of German Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy members regarding the treatment of ovarian neoplasia by robotic surgery

PURPOSE

As data on this topic are sparse and contradictory, we aimed to ascertain the opinions of the members of the German Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy (AGE) regarding the use of robotic surgery in the treatment of ovarian malignancies.

METHODS

In 2015, an anonymous questionnaire was sent to AGE members to assess their views on the treatment of ovarian malignancies by robotic surgery according to T stage and the current treatment practices in their facilities.

RESULTS

Of the 228 respondents, 132 (58%) were fellows or attending physicians and 156 (68%) worked at university hospitals or tertiary referral centers. Most [n = 218 (96%)] respondents reported treating < 10% of their patients using robotic surgery. Respondents felt that T1 and borderline ovarian tumors, but not T2 (51%) or T3/4 (76%) tumors, should and could be treated by robot surgery. 162 (71%) respondents considered the currently available data on this subject to be insufficient, and 42% indicated their willingness to participate in clinical studies on the applicability of robotic surgery to the treatment of T1/2 ovarian tumors.

CONCLUSION

The majority of AGE members surveyed considered robotic surgery to be an option for the treatment of T1 ovarian malignancies and borderline ovarian tumors. However, prospective randomized studies are needed to determine the relevance of robotic surgery in this context.

Robotic interval debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: current challenge or future direction? A systematic review

We evaluated the effectiveness, safety and efficacy of robotic interval debulking surgery (IDS) in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). We conducted a systematic review of the published relevant studies. Α total of 102 patients were evaluated. Mean operative time ranged from 164 to 312 min (mean ± SD: 246 ± 61 min) while mean estimated blood loss ranged from 106.9 to 262.5 ml (mean ± SD: 168 ± 68 ml) and postoperative blood transfusion rate was 19% (n = 19/98). Complete cytoreduction rate (R0 resection) was achieved in 75 patients (76.5%), whereas residual disease ≤ 1 cm in 21 women (21.5%). Mean hospital stay was 2.4 days. No intraoperative and six postoperative (14.6%) complications were reported. Laparotomy conversion rate was 9.2% (9/98) mostly in the terms of achieving complete cytoreduction and 30-day mortality rate was 9.2% (n = 9/98). The median overall survival varied from 39.7 to 47.2 months, while the progression-free survival ranged from 20.6 to 21.2 months during a median follow-up period from 2 to 86 months (median 25.3 months). A total of 60 women (61%) developed disease recurrence. One of the studies reported significantly improved OS and PFS in patients who underwent robotic IDS when compared to those who had laparotomy either during or before the addition of robotic surgery in the management of advanced ovarian cancer disease (47.2 vs 37.8 vs 37.9, p = 0.004 for OS and 20.6 vs 13.9 vs 11.9, p = 0.005 for PFS, respectively). The same was also observed when controlling the parameters of age and stage for patients in the robotic arm (p = 0.02). Robotic interval debulking surgery can be considered in the management of advanced ovarian cancer patients after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Larger meta-analyses including multicenter randomized control trials are necessary to specify the exact profile of the patients that could benefit from this treatment strategy.

Infectious complications of laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the infectious complications of hysterectomy, comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, and EMBASE through July 2018 for studies evaluating robotic-assisted hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy, and infectious complications. We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled OR estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I² estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. Pooled ORs were calculated separately based on the reason for hysterectomy (eg, benign uterine diseases, endometrial cancer, and cervical cancer).

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included in the final review for the meta-analysis with 176 016 patients undergoing hysterectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infectious complication events between robotic-assisted hysterectomy and laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.74 to 1.28). When we performed a stratified analysis, similar results were found with no statistically significant difference in infectious complications comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy among patients with benign uterine disease (pooled OR 1.10; 95 % CI 0.70 to 1.73), endometrial cancer (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.55 to 1.73), or cervical cancer (pooled OR 1.09; 95 % CI 0.60 to 1.97).

CONCLUSION

In our meta-analysis the rate of infectious complications associated with robotic-assisted hysterectomy was no different than that associated with conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy.

Incorporating robotic surgery into the management of ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

With the rapid uptake of robotic surgery in surgical oncology, its use in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancers is being evaluated. Complete cytoreduction represents the goal of surgery either at primary cytoreduction or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the setting of interval cytoreduction. In selected patients, the extent of disease would enable minimally invasive surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of introducing robotic surgery for interval cytoreduction of selected patients with stage III-IV ovarian cancer.

METHODS

All patients who underwent surgery from November 2008 to 2014 (concurrent time period when robotic and open surgery were used simultaneously) after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer (stage III-IV) were compared with all consecutive patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery by laparotomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy between January 2006 and November 2008. Inclusion criteria included an interval cytoreductive surgery by laparotomy or robotic assistance for stage III-IV non-mucinous epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Exclusion criteria included patients treated concurrently for a non-gynecologic cancer, as well as secondary cytoreductive surgeries and diagnostic surgeries without an attempt at tumor reduction. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and peri-operative outcomes were compared for the entire patient cohort with those with advanced ovarian cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy immediately before and after the introduction of robotic surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 91 patients were selected to undergo interval cytoreduction either via robotic surgery (n=57) or laparotomy (n=34) after the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median age of the cohort was 65 years (range 24-88), 78% had stage III disease, and the median follow-up time was 37 months (5.6-91.4 months). The median survival was 42.8±3.1 months in the period where both robotic surgery and laparotomy were offered compared with 37.9±9.8 months in the time period preceding when only laparotomy was performed (p=0.6). All patients selected to undergo interval robotic cytoreduction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a reduction of cancer antigen 125 by at least 80%, resolution of ascites, and CT findings suggesting the potential to achieve optimal interval cytoreduction. All these patients achieved optimal cytoreduction with <1 cm residual disease, including 82% with no residual disease. The median blood loss was 100 mL (mean 135 mL, range 10-1250 mL), and the median hospital stay was 1 day.

CONCLUSION

Robotic interval cytoreductive surgery is feasible in well-selected patients. Future studies should aim to define ideal patients for minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery.

Comparison of efficacy of robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in the treatment of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We intended to compare the clinical effect of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy in ovarian cancer treatment.

METHODS

The included studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) was used to evaluate the study quality. Effect measures were presented with weighted mean difference (WMD)/odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and heterogeneity test was assessed using Q test and I2 statistics to determine the use of the random effects model or fixed effects model. Egger's test was used to assess the publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies was included in this meta-analysis with a MINORS score of 16-18. In the random effects model, estimated blood loss (EBL) of robotic surgery was significantly less compared with laparotomy (WMD = - 521.7027, 95% CI - 809.7816; - 233.6238). In the fixed effects model, length of hospital stay (LHS) (WMD = - 5.2225, 95% CI - 6.1485; - 4.2965) and postoperative complication (PC) (OR = 0.4710, 95% CI 0.2537; 0.8747) of robotic surgery were significantly less, and overall survival (OS) rate (OR = 6.4355, 95% CI 1.6722; 24.7678, P = 0.0070) of robotic surgery was significantly higher compared with laparotomy. There was no difference in the effect size of all variables between robotic surgery and laparoscopy. Meanwhile, a publication bias (t = 6.8290, P = 0.002405) was only identified for PC in robotic surgery and laparotomy groups; no publication bias was identified for the other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the above results, it failed to show oncological safety and recurrence by pathological stages or histologic types in this meta-analysis, and those confounding factors might affect the clinical outcome. Future meta-analyses with a larger number of eligible randomized controlled trial studies were needed to determine the most suitable treatment method for patients with different stages and types of ovarian cancer.

Minimally Invasive Surgery to Treat Gynecological Cancer: Conventional Laparoscopy and/or Robot-Assisted Surgery

Robotic-assisted surgery is a technological advancement derived from conventional laparoscopy, which facilitates the application of minimally invasive techniques for complex operations in the field of gynecological oncology. However, its introduction in gynecological cancer has been scarce in most hospitals worldwide. Most publications on robotic surgery are still retrospective or descriptive in nature. Some studies compare robotic-assisted laparoscopy with open procedures, which is a questionable analysis, because the advantages of minimally invasive surgery have been already well established. Robotic surgery should be directly compared with conventional laparoscopy to determine whether its additional direct and indirect costs are in accordance with some improvements within patient clinical outcomes. On the other hand, the role of robotic-assisted surgery in allowing more patients to receive the benefits of the minimally invasive approach should also be considered. The objective of this article was, therefore, to review the literature regarding the role of conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopy to treat women with gynecologic cancer.

Interval robotic cytoreduction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer

The objective of this study is to review our experience with robotic interval cytoreduction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. We retrospectively reviewed patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and interval robotic cytoreduction (IRC) between 2011 and 2016 at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Demographic information, chemotherapy treatment, operative results, and follow-up were extracted from medical records. Twenty-nine patients underwent IRC after a mean of 3.9 cycles of NAC. The mean operative time was 165 min with a mean EBL of 107 cc. The mean length of stay was 2.0 days. One case (3.3%) was converted to an open procedure because of extensive tumor not amenable to robotic cytoreduction. Overall, 19 (66%) patients underwent an R0 cytoreduction, 8 (28%) an optimal (<1 cm) cytoreduction, and 2 (7%) a suboptimal cytoreduction. The median overall survival was 39.7 months and median progression-free survival was 21.2 months. Interval robotic cytoreduction following NAC is feasible and may be preferable to open interval cytoreductive surgery, in specific patients, to minimize morbidity and length of hospital stay.

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.

Robotic surgery in gynecology

Robotic surgery is the most dynamic development in the sector of minimally invasive operations currently. It should not be viewed as an alternative to laparoscopy, but as the next step in a process of technological evolution. The advancement of robotic surgery, in terms of the introduction of the Da Vinci Xi, permits the variable use of optical devices in all four trocars. Due to the new geometry of the "patient cart," an operation can be performed in all spatial directions without re-docking. Longer instruments and the markedly narrower mechanical elements of the "patient cart" provide greater flexibility as well as access similar to those of traditional laparoscopy. Currently, robotic surgery is used for a variety of indications in the treatment of benign gynecological diseases as well as malignant ones. Interdisciplinary cooperation and cooperation over large geographical distances have been rendered possible by telemedicine, and will ensure comprehensive patient care in the future by highly specialized surgery teams. In addition, the second operation console and the operation simulator constitute a new dimension in advanced surgical training. The disadvantages of robotic surgery remain the high costs of acquisition and maintenance as well as the laborious training of medical personnel before they are confident with using the technology.

Complication reports for robotic surgery using three arms by a single surgeon at a single institution

BACKGROUND:

The aim of this study is to evaluate perioperative complications related to robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for management of gynaecologic disorders.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Eight hundred and fifty-one women who underwent robotic procedures between December 2011 and April 2015 were retrospectively included for analysis. Patient demographics, surgical outcomes and complications were evaluated.

RESULTS:

The overall complication rate was 5.5%, whereas the rate of complications for oncologic cases was 8.4%. Intra-operative complications (n = 7, 0.8%) consisted of five cases of bowel lacerations, one case of ureter laceration and one case of bladder injury. Early and late post-operative complications were 4.0% (n = 34) and 0.8% (n = 6), respectively. Six patients (0.7%) experienced Grade III complications based on the Clavien-Dindo classification and required further surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION:

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a feasible approach for management of gynaecologic disorders; the complication rates for this type of procedure are acceptable.