Introducing robotic radical hysterectomy for stage 1bi cervical cancer-A prospective evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in a single UK institution

Comparison of survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate survival outcomes between RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

Studies comparing between RRH and LRH published up to November 2022 were systemically searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of the published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently extracted data. Studies with information on recurrence and death after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were also included. The extracted data were analyzed using the Stata MP software package version 17.0.

RESULTS

Twenty eligible clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios of RRH for recurrence and death were 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.91-1.55; p=0.613; I²=0.0%) and 0.96 (95% CI=0.65-1.42; p=0.558; I²=0.0%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, the quality of study methodology, study size, country where the study was conducted, and publication year were not associated with survival outcomes between RRH and LRH.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that the survival outcomes are comparable between RRH and LRH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Identifier: CRD42023387916.

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.

Robotic surgery in gynaecology: Scientific Impact Paper No. 71 (July 2022)

The use of robotic-assisted keyhole surgery in gynaecology has expanded in recent years owing to technical advances. These include 3D viewing leading to improved depth perception, limitation of tremor, potential for greater precision and discrimination of tissues, a shorter learning curve and improved comfort for surgeons compared with conventional keyhole and open abdominal surgery. Robotic-assisted keyhole surgery, compared with conventional keyhole surgery, improves surgical performance without increasing operating time, minimises blood loss and intra- or postoperative complications, while reducing the need to revert to abdominal surgery. Moreover, surgeons using a robot experience fewer skeletomuscular problems of their own in the short and long term than those operating without a robot as an additional tool. This Scientific Impact Paper looks at the use of a robot in different fields of gynaecological surgery. A robot could be considered safe and a more effective surgical tool than conventional keyhole surgery for women who have to undergo complex gynaecology surgery or have associated medical issues such as body-mass index (BMI) at 30 kg/m² or above or lung problems. The introduction of the use of robots in keyhole surgery has resulted in a decrease in the number of traditional open surgeries and the risk of conversion to open surgery after traditional keyhole surgery; both of which should be considered when examining the cost-benefit of using a robot. Limitations of robotic-assisted surgery remain the associated higher costs. In womb cancer surgery there is good evidence that introducing robotics into the service improves outcomes for women and may reduce costs.

Robotic Radical Hysterectomy Is Not Superior to Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Perioperative Urologic Complications: A Meta-Analysis of 23 Studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications after robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).

DATA SOURCES

We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to March 2019. Related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also checked.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two researchers independently performed data extraction. We selected comparative studies that reported perioperative urologic complications.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Twenty-three eligible clinical trials were included in this analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratio for the risk of any urologic complication after RRH compared with LRH was .91 (95% confidence interval [CI], .64-1.28; p = .585). The odds ratios for intraoperative and postoperative complications after RRH versus LRH were .86 (95% CI, .48-1.55; p = .637) and .94 (95% CI, .64-1.38; p = .767), respectively. In a secondary analysis study quality, study location, and the publication year were not associated with intraoperative or postoperative urologic complications.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that RRH is not superior to LRH in terms of perioperative urologic complications.