Robot assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the management of advanced cervical carcinoma

Conventional Laparoscopy versus Robotic-Assisted Aortic Lymph-Nodal Staging for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aortic lymph node metastases are a relative common finding in locally advanced cervical cancer. Minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach to perform para-aortic lymph nodal staging to reduce complications, hospital stay, and the time to primary treatment. This meta-analysis (CRD42022335095) aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of the two most advanced approaches for the aortic staging procedure: conventional laparoscopy (CL) versus robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL). The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. The search string included the following keywords: "Laparoscopy" (MeSH Unique ID: D010535), "Robotic Surgical Procedures" (MeSH Unique ID: D065287), "Lymph Node Excision" (MeSH Unique ID: D008197) and "Aorta" (MeSH Unique ID: D001011), and "Uterine Cervical Neoplasms" (MeSH Unique ID: D002583). A total of 1324 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 1200 patients were included in the CL group and 124 patients in the RAL group. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in CL compared with RAL (p = 0.02), whereas hospital stay was longer in RAL compared with CL (p = 0.02). We did not find significant difference for all the other parameters, including operative time, intra- and postoperative complication rate, and number of lymph nodes excised. Based on our data analysis, both CL and RAL are valid options for para-aortic staging lymphadenectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer.

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.

Bowel injury in robotic gynecologic surgery: risk factors and management options. A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We sought to analyze the published literature on bowel injuries in patients undergoing gynecologic robotic surgery with the aim to determine its incidence, predisposing factors, and treatment options.

DATA SOURCES

Studies included in this analysis were identified by searching PubMed Central, OVID Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. References for all studies were also reviewed. Time frame for data analysis spanned from November 2001 through December 2014.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All English-language studies reporting the incidence of bowel injury or complications during robotic gynecologic surgery were included. Studies with data duplication, not in English, case reports, or studies that did not explicitly define bowel injury incidence were excluded.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

The Guidelines for Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies were used to complete the systematic review with the exception of scoring study quality and a single primary reviewer.

RESULTS

In all, 370 full-text articles were reviewed and 144 met the inclusion criteria. There were 84 bowel injuries recorded in 13,444 patients for an incidence of 1 in 160 (0.62%; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.76%). There were no significant differences in incidence of bowel injury by procedure type. The anatomic location of injury, etiology, and management were rarely reported. Of the bowel injuries, 87% were recognized intraoperatively and the majority (58%) managed via a minimally invasive approach. Of 13,444 patients, 3 (0.02%) (95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.07%) died in the immediate postoperative period and no deaths were a result of a bowel injury.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of bowel injury in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery is 1 in 160. When the location of bowel injuries were specified, they most commonly occurred in the colon and rectum and most were managed via a minimally invasive approach.

Robotically assisted para-aortic lymphadenectomy: surgical results: a cohort study of 487 patients

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) in patients with gynecologic cancers during the learning phases of robotic surgery programs and to compare results of extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approaches of PAL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is a retrospective multicentric study of patients who underwent robotically assisted laparoscopic PAL (N = 487). Eleven European centers and 1 US center participated in the study. Abstracted data included age, body mass index, indication, type of surgical approach (transperitoneal or extraperitoneal), associated surgical procedures, operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node count, hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications. Para-aortic lymphadenectomy was performed by an extraperitoneal approach in 58 cases (12%) and transperitoneal in 429 cases (88%).

RESULTS

The mean (SD) para-aortic lymph node count was 12.6 (8.1), operative time was 217 (85) minutes, estimated blood loss was 105 (110) mL, and LOS was 2.8 (3.2) days. Four (0.8%) conversions to open and 2 (0.4%) conversions to laparoscopy were described. There were 32 lymphocysts (6.6%), 3 deep venous thromboses (0.6%), and 10 transfusions (2.1%). For transperitoneal approach, the average number of lymph nodes removed was higher in isolated PAL group than the hysterectomy combined group (report node counts 95% confidence interval, -7.29 to -3.52, P = 1.5 × 10⁻⁶). For isolated PAL, the LOS was shorter in the extraperitoneal group than in the transperitoneal group (report data 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.35, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted PAL seems safe and feasible. More lymph nodes were removed during an isolated transperitoneal PAL dissection compared with a combined procedure with hysterectomy. Extraperitoneal approach seems attractive relative to transperitoneal dissection, but the superiority of one or the other way is not demonstrated by our study.

Robotic high para-aortic lymph node dissection with high port placement using same port for pelvic surgery in gynecologic cancer patients

Objective

This study reports our initial experience of robotic high para-aortic lymph node dissection (PALND) with high port placement using same port for pelvic surgery in cervical and endometrial cancer patients.

Methods

Between July 2013 and January 2014, we performed robotic high PALND up to the left renal vein during staging surgeries. With high port placement and same port usage for pelvic surgery, high PALND was successfully performed without repositioning the robotic column. All data were registered consecutively and analyzed retrospectively.

Results

All patients successfully underwent robotic high PALND, followed by hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Median age was 45 years (range, 39 to 51 years) and median body mass index was 22 kg/m² (range, 19.3 to 23.1 kg/m²). Median operative time for right PALND and left PALND was 37 minutes (range, 22 to 65 minutes) and 44 minutes (range, 36 to 50 minutes), respectively. Median number of right and left para-aortic lymph node by pathologic report was 12 (range, 8 to 15) and 13 (range, 5 to 26).

Conclusion

With high port placement and one assistant port, robotic high PALND with the same port used in pelvic surgery is feasible to non-obese patients.

Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in gynaecological neoplasms: comparison of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal lymphadenectomy

OBJECTIVE

The main aim of our study is to review the till now available literature data on the role of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in gynaecological cancers by comparing the extraperitoneal versus the transperitoneal approach.

METHODS

A thorough and systematic search was performed in electronic databases of PubMed and Scopus.

RESULTS

The extraperitoneal approach is described in 148 patients. The age of the patients ranged from 26 to 78 years. The indications included cervical, endometrial and ovarian carcinoma in 113, 22 and 12 patients, respectively. The operative time ranged between 45 and 410 min. The number of dissected lymph nodes ranged from 3 to 25, while only 13 of them were found to be positive. The mean estimated blood loss during the operation was 77 ml (range <50-200 ml). Seven cases were converted to open. The duration of hospital stay ranged from 2 to 14 days. The transperitoneal approach is described in 898 patients. The age of the patients ranged from 15 to 89 years. Cervical, endometrial and ovarian carcinomas were the principal neoplasias present in 248, 449 and 164 patients, respectively. The operative time ranged from 19 to 633 min. The number of dissected lymph nodes ranged from 1 to 54, while the total number of patients with positive lymph nodes dissected was 56 patients. The estimated blood loss during the operation varied between 20 and 1800 ml. Only 9 out of 898 patients were converted to open. The duration of hospital stay ranged from 1 to 40 days.

CONCLUSION

A reliable definition of the "kind" of lymphadenectomy used in each study is the first step in order to reach safe conclusions. The lack of comparative studies, especially the randomized ones, cannot help us draw any safe conclusion regarding both the clinical outcomes and the possibility of any superiority of these different approaches (extraperitoneal and transperitoneal).

Robotic-assisted transperitoneal aortic lymphadenectomy as part of staging procedure for gynaecological malignancies: single institution experience

Introduction. This study was designed to confirm the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted transperitoneal aortic lymphadenectomy as part of staging procedure for gynecologic malignancies. Methods. Chart review of 51 patients who had undergone robotic staging with aortic lymphadenectomy for different gynaecologic malignancies was performed. Results. The primary diagnosis was as follows: 6 cases of endometrial cancer, 31 epithelial ovarian cancer, 9 nonepithelial ovarian cancer, 4 tubal cancer, and 1 cervical cancer. Median BMI was 23 kg/m². Except for a single case of aortic lymphadenectomy only, both aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomies were performed at the time of the staging procedure. All the para-aortic lymphadenectomies were carried out to the level of the renal veinl but 6 cases were carried out to the level of the inferior mesenteric artery. Hysterectomy was performed in 24 patiens (47%). There was no conversion to LPT. The median console time was 285 (range 195–402) with a significant difference between patients who underwent hysterectomy and those who did not. The median estimated blood loss was 50 mL (range 20–200). The mean number of removed nodes was 29 ± 9.6. The mean number of pelvic nodes was 15 ± 7.6, whereas the mean number of para-aortic nodes was 14 ± 6.6. Conclusions. Robotic transperitoneal infrarenal aortic lymphadenectomy as part of staging procedure is feasible and can be safely performed. Additional trocars are needed when pelvic surgery is also performed.

Efficacy of DynaCT for surgical navigation during complex laparoscopic surgery: an initial experience

BACKGROUND

Precise understanding of surgical anatomy is required during complex laparoscopic surgery (CLS). The purpose of this study was to present our initial operative experience with CLS facilitated by surgical navigation through DynaCT technology.

METHODS

Intraoperative computed tomography (CT) images of two CLS cases were obtained by a C-arm DynaCT system (Artis Zeego, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany). Image reconstruction was performed on a workstation to define particular anatomical structures of the target tumor. The reconstructed CT images were repeatedly displayed on a submonitor. The surgeon then compared the CT images with a laparoscopic image of the surgical field, thus providing a virtual map to the surgeon.

RESULTS

Using the near-real-time surgical navigation system, the surgeon could visualize the surgical anatomy and easily perform the CLS. All procedures were performed successfully with a satisfactory diagnostic yield.

CONCLUSION

This novel technology has great potential for application in CLS because it enables generation of accurate depictions of small target tumors and increases the surgeon's confidence during the procedure.

Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review

The introduction of da Vinci Robotic Surgery to the field of Gynecology has resulted in large changes in surgical management. The robotic platform allows less experienced laparoscopic surgeons to perform more complex procedures. In general gynecology and reproductive gynecology, the robot is being increasingly used for procedures such as hysterectomies, myomectomies, adnexal surgery, and tubal anastomosis. Among urogynecology the robot is being utilized for sacrocolopexies. In the field of gynecologic oncology, the robot is being increasingly used for hysterectomies and lymphadenectomies in oncologic diseases. Despite the rapid and widespread adoption of robotic surgery in gynecology, there are no randomized trials comparing its efficacy and safety to other traditional surgical approaches. Our aim is to update previously published reviews with a focus on only comparative observational studies. We determined that, with the right amount of training and skill, along with appropriate patient selection, robotic surgery can be highly advantageous. Patients will likely have less blood loss, less post-operative pain, faster recoveries, and fewer complications compared to open surgery and potentially even laparoscopy. However, until larger, well-designed observational studies or randomized control trials are completed which report long-term outcomes, we cannot definitively state the superiority of robotic surgery over other surgical methods.