Comparison between single-site and multiport robot-assisted hysterectomy in obese patients with endometrial cancer: An Italian multi-institutional study

Surgical outcomes of single-port vs multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer who underwent either single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPLH) or multi-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (MPLH).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search from the earliest records available up to May 2023. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Both the SPLH and MPLH groups had similar operative times (MD = -4.27, 95% CI [-35.75, 27.22], p = 0.98), conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] = 1.43, 95% CI [0.57, 3.59], p = 0.44), blood transfusion rates, intraoperative complications (bladder injury, bowel injury, and vascular injury), and postoperative complications (umbilical hernia, fever, fistula, lymphocyst, and wound-related issues). However, the SPLH group showed significant advantages in certain areas. There was a notable reduction in estimated intraoperative blood loss (EBL) compared to the MPLH group (mean difference [MD] = -23.80, 95% CI [-42.99, -4.62], p = 0.02) and a shorter hospital stay duration (MD = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.46, -0.20], p < 0.00001). Although there was some debate about postoperative pain, SPLH tended to have more favorable outcomes. Despite these advantages, the SPLH group was less efficient in para-aortic lymph node clearance compared to the MPLH group (MD = -0.96, 95% CI [-1.57, -0.35], p = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in overall lymph node dissection (MD = -0.91, 95% CI [-2.52, 0.70], p = 0.27) and pelvic lymph node dissection (MD = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.82, 1.27], p = 0.36) between the two groups. Additionally, both groups showed similar therapeutic results, with no significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

CONCLUSION

SPLH and MPLH techniques are equally effective in treating endometrial cancer, with both showing low rates of surgical complications with similar rates of surgical complications and therapeutic outcomes. However, SPLH offers additional benefits, including smaller incisions, reduced estimated intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stays, making it an increasingly popular option for treating endometrial cancer.

Surgical Outcomes Following Robotic Single-Site Versus Multiport Hysterectomy for Treatment of Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) has emerged as a novel surgical approach for the treatment of endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). Current research regarding the benefits of RSSH compared to robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) for these indications has been inconclusive. Our team sought to compare surgical outcomes between these two approaches of robotic hysterectomy via systematic review and meta-analysis to ensure optimal surgical practices. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Checklist guided our review. MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Library were searched, yielding 59 results. Articles were filtered by title and abstract and then reviewed in full for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria required that (1) studies compared outcomes for RSSH and RMPH, (2) hysterectomy was indicated for endometrial cancer or hyperplasia with atypia, and (3) studies were available in English. Excluded studies (1) compared single-site and multiport laparoscopic approaches, (2) compared robotic approaches to laparoscopic or abdominal (open) techniques, and (3) employed hysterectomy for benign conditions. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger Regression Correlation analysis. Four studies complied with the selection criteria, comprising 138 patients in the RSSH group and 259 in the RMPH group. Similar outcomes were noted across all measures, including conversion rate (relative risk [RR] = 1.84 and confidence interval [CI] = 0.99-3.43), blood loss (Cohen's d = 1.05 and Z = 18.62), operating time (Cohen's d = 0.29 and Z = 4.38), and length of hospital stay (Cohen's d = 1.06 and Z = 3.86). Publication bias was deemed minimal as indicated by Egger regression values of less than 0.05. These findings suggest that either a surgical approach or AEH with the proper standard of care can provide patients with endometrial cancer.

Early evaluation of a next-generation surgical system in robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy: A prospective clinical cohort study

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to demonstrate the safe and effective use of the Versius surgical system (CMR Surgical, Cambridge, UK) in robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. This surgical robot was developed iteratively with input from surgeons to improve surgical outcomes and end-user experience. We report data from the gynecology cohort of an early clinical trial designed in broad alignment with IDEAL-D (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up - Devices) stage 2b (Exploration).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study is registered in the Indian clinical trials register (CTRI/2019/02/017872). Adult women requiring total hysterectomy who provided informed consent and met the eligibility criteria underwent procedures at one of three hospitals in India. Five surgeons performed robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomies using the device from March 2019 to September 2020. The primary endpoint was rate of unplanned conversion to conventional laparoscopic or open surgery. Adverse events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee using endoscope video recordings and clinical notes.

RESULTS

In total, 144 women underwent surgery (median age: 44 years [range: 28-78]; median body mass index 25.8 kg/m² [range: 14.3-47.8]). The rate of unplanned conversion to conventional laparoscopy was 2/144 (1.4%); neither conversion was device related. No surgery was converted to open. In total, 13 adverse events occurred among seven (4.9%) patients, comprising seven serious adverse events and six adverse events. One serious adverse event was deemed device-related. Two patients were readmitted to hospital within 30 days; both made a full recovery. No patients died within 90 days of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The device provides a safe and effective option for total laparoscopic hysterectomy; these findings support its continued implementation in larger patient cohorts and expansion in other major minimal access indications.

Ultra-minimally invasive approaches for endometrial cancer treatment: review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the outcomes and role of ultra-minimally invasive surgical approaches for treatment of women diagnosed with endometrial cancer. Although, there is no agreed definition of the term "ultraminimal," we considered the hysteroscopic surgery, single-port surgery, mini/microlaparoscopy and percutaneous laparoscopy as surgical approaches that would best fit this description.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The current systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Guidelines. We performed a literature search using MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for English-language studies published before August 1, 2020. We used the following keywords including "endometrial cancer," "endometrial malignancy," "fertility-sparing or preserving," "hysteroscopy," "hysteroscopic resection," "dilatation and curettage," "ultra-minimally invasive surgery," "progestin therapy," "hormone therapy," "single port," "single-site," "minilaparoscopy," "microlaparoscopy," "percutaneous" and "3 mm laparoscopy."

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 21 studies, reporting on 229 patients were included. 219 (95.6%) of the patients were premenopausal. Among premenopausal women, complete disease response was reported in 186 (84.9%) patients. The complete response rate was 77.1% in patients who underwent focal or extensive endometrial resection, 90.9% in patients who had the two-step approach and 88.9% in the group of patients treated with the three-step technique. Among 98 women who wished and attempted to conceive, 65 (66.3%) women became pregnant. Recurrent disease was diagnosed in 26 of 219 (11.9%) patients. No surgical complications were reported. In 10 postmenopausal patients that underwent hysteroscopic resection, no recurrences were detected after 5 years of follow-up. We identified 11 studies that reported on the use single-port laparoscopic surgery and included a total of 447 patients. The rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications was 2.6% and 5.2%, respectively. The majority of the studies did not report on the duration of follow-up or oncological outcomes. Ten studies, including 296 patients, investigated the role of single-port robotic-assisted laparoscopy. The overall rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications was 1.0% and 7.1%, respectively. Two studies, including 38 patients, reported on the role of minilaparoscopy. None of these cases required conversion to laparotomy. Data on overall survival in the cohort of patients that underwent minilaparoscopy were not reported. We found only one publication reporting on the use of percutaneous laparoscopy. This prospective study included 30 patients. No complication was reported, and with a median follow-up time of 14 months (range 12-36) no recurrences were diagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS

Several ultra-minimally invasive surgical techniques have been developed and implemented in selected patients with endometrial cancer. The results of this review support the feasibility and perioperative safety of these approaches, while long-term outcomes are not adequately studied. However, further work is required in standardization of the techniques, in determining the learning curve of the operator and establishing their oncological safety.