Robot assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with short and long term morbidity data

Symptomatic Lymphocele After Robot-Assisted Pelvic Lymphadenectomy as Part of the Primary Surgical Treatment for Cervical and Endometrial Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is part of the primary treatment for early-stage cervical cancer and high-intermediate risk or high-risk endometrial cancer. Pelvic lymphocele is a postoperative complication of PLND, and when symptomatic, lymphoceles necessitate treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and risk factors of symptomatic lymphocele after robot-assisted laparoscopic PLND in cervical and endometrial cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Single-center academic hospital.

PATIENTS

Two hundred and fifty-eight patients with cervical cancer and 129 patients with endometrial cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

Pelvic lymphadenectomy by robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The authors retrospectively included all patients with early-stage cervical cancer and high-intermediate risk or high-risk endometrial cancer who underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy by robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery between 2008 and 2022. Medical records were reviewed for the occurrence of a symptomatic lymphocele. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify risk factors for developing a symptomatic lymphocele. In total, 387 patients, 258 with cervical cancer and 129 with endometrial cancer, were included in the study. The overall incidence of symptomatic lymphoceles was 9.6% with a median follow-up of 47 months [interquartile range 23-61]. For the entire cohort, smoking was the only significant risk factor for symptomatic lymphoceles identified in univariate (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19-5.11) and multivariate analysis (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.16-5.07). For cervical cancer, body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.17) and prior abdominal surgery (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.22-6.17) were also identified as significant independent risk factors. For endometrial cancer, age was identified as a significant independent risk factor (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97).

CONCLUSION

This single-center cohort study demonstrated an incidence of almost 10% of symptomatic lymphoceles after robot-assisted laparoscopic PLND for cervical cancer and endometrial cancer, with a higher risk observed among patients who smoke at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, risk factors differ between the 2 populations, necessitating further studies to establish risk models.

Survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer - A population-based study

AIM

Lately, the safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the treatment of cervical cancer (CC) has been questioned. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of recurrence and survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic MIS for the treatment of early-stage CC in Denmark.

METHODS

Population-based data on all Danish women with early-stage CC, who underwent radical hysterectomy January 1st 2005-June 30th 2017 were retrieved from the Danish Gynecologic Cancer Database and enriched with follow-up data on recurrence, death and cause of death. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the year of robotic MIS introduction at each cancer centre. Chi-squared or Fischer test, the Kaplan Meier method and multivariate Cox regression were used for comparison between groups.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred twenty-five patients with CC were included; 530 underwent surgery before (group 1) and 595 underwent surgery after (group 2) the introduction of robotic MIS. The 5-year rate of recurrence was low: 8.2% and 6.3% (p = 0.55) in group 1 and 2, respectively. In adjusted analyses, this corresponded to a five-year disease-free survival, hazard ratio (HR) 1.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.93]. No difference in site of recurrence (P = 0.19) was observed. The cumulative cancer-specific survival was 94.1% and 95.9% (P = 0.10) in group 1 and 2, respectively, corresponding to a HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.32-1.11] in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

In this population-based cohort study, the Danish nationwide adoption of robotic MIS for early-stage CC was not associated with increased risk of recurrence or reduction in survival outcomes.

Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To compare 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for cervical cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes of 10,314 cervical cancer patients who received RRH (n = 1048) or ARH (n = 9266) and whose stages were IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-IIA2. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the 3-year OS and DFS rates between the RRH and ARH groups. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching was used to estimate the surgical approach-specific survival.

RESULTS

RRH and ARH showed similar 3-year OS and DFS rates (93.5% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.486; 90.0% vs. 90.4%, p = 0.302). RRH was not associated with a lower 3-year OS rate by the multivariable analysis (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.89-1.70, p = 0.206), but it was associated with a lower 3-year DFS rate (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09-1.52, p = 0.035). After propensity score matching, patients who underwent RRH had decreased 3-year OS and DFS rates compared to those who underwent ARH (94.4% vs. 97.8%, p = 0.002; 91.1% vs. 95.4%, p = 0.001), and RRH was associated with lower 3-year OS and DFS rates. Among patients with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm, RRH was not associated with decreased 3-year OS and DFS rates (HR1.688, 95% CI 0.423-6.734, p = 0.458; HR1.267, 95%CI 0.518-3.098, p = 0.604).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, RRH was associated with worse 3-year oncological outcomes than ARH in patients with FIGO stage IA1 with LVSI- IIA2 cervical cancer. However, RRH showed similar 3-year oncological outcomes with ARH among those with stage IB1 and tumor size <2 cm.

Wound Complication Rates After Vulvar Excisions for Premalignant Lesions

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rate of wound complications and evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in vulvar wide local excision procedures.

METHODS

We performed a single-institution, retrospective cohort study of women undergoing vulvar surgery for premalignant lesions between January 2007 and January 2017. The primary outcome was a composite wound complication rate that included breakdown or infection within 8 weeks postoperatively. Data were analyzed using Fisher exact or χ test, Student t-test, and Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Wound complications occurred in 154 (28.7%) of the 537 patients. Mean age was 52 years; most patients were white (83.1%), cigarette smokers (65.2%), had no prior vulvar treatment (54.4%), and had a preoperative diagnosis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (vulvar HSIL) (70.0%). The presence of other predisposing factors was similar between groups. In multivariate analysis, smoking (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% CI 1.14-2.38) and primary rather than repeat vulvar surgery (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.31-3.01) were associated with increased risk for wound complications. There was no significant difference in wound complications between women who received preoperative antibiotics and those who did not (30.4% vs 27.4%, P=.45), although the mean length of wound separation in the antibiotic group was shorter (1 vs 2 cm, P=.03).

CONCLUSION

Wound complications are common among women undergoing surgery for vulvar HSIL, and interventional trials are warranted to evaluate the role of smoking cessation and prophylactic antibiotics to reduce postoperative morbidity.

Long-Term Morbidity after Endometrial Cancer Surgery: a Comparison of Open vs. Robotic Approach

This retrospective study is looking into the long-term morbidity after endometrial cancer staging surgery and compares the long-term morbidity of patients who underwent open staging surgery vs. robotic approach. One hundred twenty-nine patients who underwent staging surgery for endometrial cancer from January 2014 until June 2017 were included in the analysis. Morbidities occurring 1 month after surgery-vault complications, incisional hernias, vault dehiscence, and lymphedema-were looked into. There were no statistically significant differences between the long-term complications in both groups (vault infection 5.1% vs. 1.4%, vaginal cuff dehiscence 1.6% vs. 0%, incisional hernia 6.8% vs. 0%, and lymphedema 11.8% vs. 10% in open vs robotic groups respectively). But as far as clinical significance was concerned, patients who underwent robotic staging surgery had a significant decrease in vaginal cuff complications and incisional hernia. Our study shows that robotic-assisted surgery can reduce even long-term morbidity in patients undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

BACKGROUND

This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid, on 8 January 2018. We searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov. on 16 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RAS versus CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We examined different procedures in separate comparisons and for hysterectomy subgrouped data according to type of disease (non-malignant versus malignant). When more than one study contributed data, we pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs involving 1016 women. Studies were at moderate to high overall risk of bias, and we downgraded evidence mainly due to concerns about risk of bias in the studies contributing data and imprecision of effect estimates. Procedures performed were hysterectomy (eight studies) and sacrocolpopexy (three studies). In addition, one trial examined surgical treatment for endometriosis, which included resection or hysterectomy. Among studies of women undergoing hysterectomy procedures, two studies involved malignant disease (endometrial cancer); the rest involved non-malignant disease.• RAS versus CLS (hysterectomy)Low-certainty evidence suggests there might be little or no difference in any complication rates between RAS and CLS (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.59; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 51%), intraoperative complication rates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.50; participants = 583; studies = 6; I² = 37%), postoperative complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34; participants = 629; studies = 6; I² = 44%), and blood transfusions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.94; participants = 442; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference between malignant and non-malignant disease subgroups with regard to complication rates. Only one study reported death within 30 days and no deaths occurred (very low-certainty evidence). Researchers reported no survival outcomes.Mean total operating time was longer on average in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) 41.18 minutes, 95% CI -6.17 to 88.53; participants = 148; studies = 2; I² = 80%; very low-certainty evidence), and the mean length of hospital stay was slightly shorter with RAS than with CLS (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07; participants = 192; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).• RAS versus CLS (sacrocolpopexy)Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in rates of any complications between women undergoing sacrocolpopexy by RAS or CLS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.24; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 78%), nor in intraoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.59; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 47%). Low-certainty evidence on postoperative complications suggests these might be higher with RAS (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.56; studies = 1; participants = 68). Researchers did not report blood transfusions and deaths up to 30 days.Low-certainty evidence suggests that RAS might be associated with increased operating time (MD 40.53 min, 95% CI 12.06 to 68.99; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 73%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two techniques in terms of duration of stay (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.67; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 0%).• RAS versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy)A single study with a total sample size of 20 women was included in this comparison. For most outcomes, the sample size was insufficient to show any possible differences between groups.• RAS versus CLS for endometriosisA single study with data for 73 women was included in this comparison; women with endometriosis underwent procedures ranging from relatively minor endometrial resection through hysterectomy; many of the women included in this study had undergone previous surgery for their condition. For most outcomes, event rates were low, and the sample size was insufficient to detect potential differences between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS for non-malignant disease (hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy) is of low certainty but suggests that surgical complication rates might be comparable. Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for malignant disease is more uncertain because survival data are lacking. RAS is an operator-dependent expensive technology; therefore evaluating the safety of this technology independently will present challenges.

Predictive factors of severe perioperative morbidity of radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: A French prospective multicentric cohort of 248 patients

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the postoperative morbidity after radical hysterectomy (RH) for early-stage cervical cancer and to determine risk factors of severe perioperative morbidity.

METHODS

Data of two prospective trials on sentinel node biopsy for cervical cancer (SENTICOL I & II) were analysed. Patients having a radical hysterectomy were included between 2005 and 2012 from 25 French oncologic centers. Postoperative complications were prospectively recorded in a pre-specified analysis.

RESULTS

248 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 44.5 years [25-85]. 88.7% of patients had a stage IB1 disease. There were 71.4% epidermoid carcinomas and 25% adenocarcinomas. 125 patients (50.4%) had a laparoscopic-assisted vaginal RH, 88 patients (35.5%) had a total laparoscopic RH, 26 patients (10.5%) had an open RH and 9 patients (3.6%) had a robotic-assisted RH. Sixteen patients (6.4%) had intraoperative complications. On a multivariate analysis, intraoperative complications were significantly associated with BMI >30 kg/m². The urinary, lymphovascular and neurologic complications rates were respectively 34.3%, 20.6% and 19.8%. 31 patients (12.5%) had severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 or CTCAE ≥ 3). On multivariate analysis, severe postoperative complications were associated with parametrial involvement, preoperative brachytherapy and inclusion in low surgical skills center.

CONCLUSIONS

This study based on prospective data showed that RH has low severe postoperative complications. The main complications were urinary infections and lower limb lymphedema. Patients with early-stage cervical cancer should be referred to expert center to ensure best surgical outcomes.

New Developments in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Oncology Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery continues to transform the field of gynecologic oncology and has now become the standard of care for many early-stage malignancies. The proven benefits of minimally invasive surgery are driving the rapid introduction and dissemination of novel technologies and the increasing ability to perform even the most complex procedures less invasively. In this article, we will review the current literature on traditional multiport laparoscopy, robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoendoscopic single-site surgery as well as robotic-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, with a specific focus on their role in the treatment of gynecologic malignancies.

A Swedish population-based evaluation of benign hysterectomy, comparing minimally invasive and abdominal surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate surgical routes for benign hysterectomy in a Swedish population, including abdominal and minimally invasive surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospectively collected data from the Swedish National GynOp Registry 2009-2015: 13 806 hysterectomy cases were included: abdominal (AH, n = 7485), vaginal (VH, n = 3767), conventional laparoscopic (LH, n = 1539) and robotically-assisted (RAH, n = 1015).

RESULTS

The VH group had the shortest operation time at 75 min, AH 97 min and RAH 104 min. LH was longest at 127 min (p < 0.005). The mean estimated blood loss was higher in the AH group (250 ml) compared to all minimally invasive surgery (MIS, 65-172 ml); p < 0.005). Conversion rates were 10% for LH, 4.8% for VH and 1.6% for RAH (p < 0.005). Hospitalization and patient-reported time to normal activities of daily living (ADL) were longer for AH compared to MIS (p < 0.005). Time to return to work was eight days longer in the AH group (35 days) compared with the MIS groups (p < 0.005). Complications were fewest in the VH group at 5.4% compared with AH 7.6% and RAH 8.7% (both p < 0.001), but did not significantly differ from the LH group at 6.6%. Overall patient satisfaction was reported to be 86-94% one year after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Women operated on for benign hysterectomy with minimally invasive methods in Sweden 2009-2015 had reduced length of hospitalization, as well as time to resuming normal ADL and return to work, compared to AH. Postoperative outcome measures were improved by minimally invasive methods and MIS should preferably be used.

Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer

Objective

The use of robotic radical hysterectomy has greatly increased in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought to compare surgical and oncologic outcomes of women undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy compared to open radical hysterectomy.

Methods

The clinic-pathologic, treatment, and recurrence data were abstracted through an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol at 2 separate large tertiary care centers in Seattle, Swedish Medical Center and the University of Washington. Data were collected from 2001–2012. Comparisons between the robotic and open cohorts were made for complications, recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

In the study period, 109 robotic radical hysterectomies were performed. These were compared to 202 open radical hysterectomies. The groups were comparable in terms of age and body mass index (BMI). Length of stay (LOS) was considerably shorter in the robotic group (42.7 vs. 112.6 hours, p<0.001) as was estimated blood loss (EBL; 105.9 vs. 482.6 mL, p<0.001). There were more complications in the open radical hysterectomy group, 23.4% vs. 9.2% in the robotic group (p=0.002). The recurrence rate was comparable between the groups (10.1% vs. 10.4%, p=0.730). In multivariate adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was not a statistically significant predictor of PFS (p=0.230) or OS (0.85).

Conclusion

Our study, one of the largest multi-institution cohorts of patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy, suggest robotic radical hysterectomy leads to comparable oncologic outcomes in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer with improved short-term surgical outcomes such as decreased LOS and EBL.

Perioperative Outcomes of 3-Arm Versus 4-Arm Robotic Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate and compare surgical outcomes of the 3 versus 4 robotic arm approaches for robotic surgery in patients with cervical cancer.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

An academic tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 142 patients with stage 1A1 to IIB cervical carcinoma who underwent robotic surgery were included for analysis. The subjects were divided according to the surgical approach (i.e., the number of robotic arms), and the 2 groups were compared in terms of intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes.

INTERVENTIONS

Robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) with lymphadenectomy using 3 robotic arms (n = 101) versus 4 robotic arms (n = 41).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Perioperative surgical outcomes. The 3-arm robotic approach consisted of a camera arm, 2 robotic arms, and 1 conventional assistant port. An additional robotic arm was placed on the right side of the patient's abdomen for the 4-arm robotic approach. The mean age, body mass index, cell type, Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique stage, and type of surgery were not significantly different between the 2 cohorts. The 3-arm approach showed favorable outcomes over the 4-arm approach in terms of postoperative pain at 6 and 24 hours (3.8 ± 1.8 vs 4.5 ± 1.7 and 2.8 ± 1.7 vs 3.4 ± 1.6, respectively; p = .033 and .049) and postoperative hemoglobin difference (1.8 ± 0.9 vs 2.6 ± 1.3 and 1.9 ± 1.1 vs 2.4 ± 0.9 on days 1 and 3, respectively; p = .002 and .004). The median length of postoperative hospital stay, total operative time, docking time, lymph node yield, and intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were comparable between the 2 cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Surgical outcomes and complications rates of RRH for cervical cancer using the 4-arm approach were comparable with that of the 3-arm approach with decreased early postoperative pain in the 3-arm group. Cost-benefit analysis and the impact on surgical training are needed in the future.

Comparison of Robotic and laparoscopic Radical type-B and C hysterectomy for cervical cancer: Long term-outcomes

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and oncologic outcomes of Robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) in patients with cervical carcinoma.

DESIGN

Long term follow-up in a prospective study between March 2010 to March 2016.

SETTING

Oncological referral center, department of gynecology and obstetrics of Alessandro Manzoni Hospital, department of gynecology, University of San Gerardo Monza, Milan.

PATIENTS

52 patients with cervical carcinoma, matched by age, body mass index, tumor size, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, comorbidity, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, histology type, and tumor grade to obtain homogeneous samples.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients with FIGO stage IA2 or IB1 with a tumor size less than or equal to 2 cm underwent RR type B. RR-Type C1 was performed in stage IB1, with a tumor size larger than 2 cm, or in patients previously treated with NACT (IB2). In all cases Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed for the treatment of cervical cancer.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Surgical time was similar for both the 2 groups. RRH was associated with significantly less (EBL) estimated blood loss (P=0,000). Median number pelvic lymph nodes was similar, but a major number of nodes was observed in RRH group (35.58 vs 24.23; P=0,050). The overall median length of follow-up was 59 months (range: 9-92) and 30 months (range: 90-6) for RRH and TLRH group respectively. Overall survival rate (OSR) was 100% for RRH group and 83.4% for LTRH group. The DFS (disease free survival rate) was of 97% and 89% in RRH and LTRH group respectively. No significant difference was reported in HS (hospital stay).

CONCLUSIONS

RRH is safe and feasible and is associated with an improved intraoperative results and clinical oncological outcomes. The present study showed that robotic surgery, in comparison to laparoscopic approach, was associated with better perioperative outcomes because of a decrease of EBL, and similar operative time, HS and complication rate, without neglecting the long-term optimal oncologic outcomes.

Role of robotic surgery in cervical malignancy

Surgical treatment is the mainstay of the management of early-stage cervical cancer. Abdominal radical hysterectomy and trachelectomy have long been the standard surgical approach to early-stage cervical cancer, achieving excellent survival outcomes. Recently, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and trachelectomy have become the preferred alternative to abdominal surgery because laparoscopic approaches lead to better surgical outcomes without compromising survival outcomes. Since the robotic surgery platform was approved for the use of gynaecologic surgery in 2005, robotic radical hysterectomy and trachelectomy have been increasingly used in the surgical management of early-stage cervical cancer. However, the role of robotic surgery is poorly defined. This review examines the role of robotic surgery in the surgical management of cervical cancer by comparing the published data on its use with those of abdominal and laparoscopic surgeries.

Robot-assisted gynaecological cancer surgery-complications and prevention

Ever since the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the use of da Vinci surgical systems (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California) in gynaecology in 2005, robot-assisted surgery has been widely adopted in different countries. Some of the applications in benign and oncological gynaecology include myomectomy, sacrocolpopexy, tubal anastomosis, simple hysterectomy, radical hysterectomy, radical trachelectomy, pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy and even debulking surgery for ovarian cancer and pelvic exenteration for recurrent cervical and vaginal cancer. Although there is robust evidence on the safety and treatment outcomes in robot-assisted surgery, complications still rarely occur. Team approach is particularly important in robotic surgery and thorough communication between the bedside assistant and the console surgeon cannot be stressed any more. Thus, complications can be due to miscommunication between the console surgeon and bedside assistant, positioning of the patients, the length of the operations, the malfunction of the instrument and the risks specific to the types of anaesthesia and surgery per se, leading to thromboembolism, haemorrhage, organ damage, and so on. The most important strategies that can prevent complications are to have thorough preoperative assessment of the patients' fitness, good communication between surgical team members, caution regarding the positioning, a good knowledge of the pelvic and abdominal anatomy, careful and meticulous manipulation of the instrument and early recognition of the complications. In this article, different types of complications and the preventive measures are described.

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.

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.

Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology: An Updated Survey of Members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the current patterns of use of minimally invasive surgical procedures, including traditional, robotic-assisted, and single-port laparoscopy, by Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) members and to compare the results to those of our 2004 and 2007 surveys.

METHODS

The Society of Gynecologic Oncology members were surveyed through an online or mailed-paper survey. Data were analyzed and compared with results of our prior surveys.

RESULTS

Four hundred six (32%) of 1279 SGO members responded. Eighty-three percent of respondents (n = 337) performed traditional laparoscopic surgery (compared with 84% in 2004 and 91% in 2007). Ninety-seven percent of respondents performed robotic surgery (compared with 27% in 2007). When respondents were asked to indicate procedures that they performed with the robot but not with traditional laparoscopy, 75% indicated radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer. Overall, 70% of respondents indicated that hysterectomy and staging for uterine cancer was the procedure they most commonly performed with a minimally invasive approach. Only 17% of respondents who performed minimally invasive surgery performed single-port laparoscopy, and only 5% of respondents indicated that single-port laparoscopy has an important or very important role in the field.

CONCLUSIONS

Since our prior surveys, we found a significant increase in the overall use and indications for robotic surgery. Radical hysterectomy or trachelectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer and total hysterectomy and staging for endometrial cancer were procedures found to be significantly more appropriate for the robotic platform in comparison to traditional laparoscopy. The indications for laparoscopy have expanded beyond endometrial cancer staging to include surgical management of early-stage cervical and ovarian cancers, but the use of single-port laparoscopy remains limited.

Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Carcinoma: The Belgian Experience

Objective

The purpose of this study was to report the experience and oncological outcome of robot-assisted radical hysterectomies (RRHs) for cervical cancer performed in Belgium.

Methods

Patients undergoing RRH for cervical cancer (n = 109) were prospectively collected between July 2007 and April 2014 in the 5 Belgian centers performing RRH for cervical cancer.

Results

The median age of the patients was 46 years (range, 31–80 years). Histological types included squamous cell carcinoma in 61 patients, adenocarcinoma in 22 patients, adenosquamous in 8 patients, endometrioid carcinoma in 2 patients, and other types (n = 16). The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage distribution was IA (n = 9), stage IB1 (n = 71), stage IB2 (n = 4), stage II (n = 24), and unknown (n = 1). Twenty-four patients received adjuvant therapy, 17 patients underwent radiochemotherapy, and 7 underwent adjuvant radiation. Eighteen patients relapsed, and 5 died of disease. The median follow-up was 27.5 months (range, 3–82 months). The 2- and 5-year overall survivals were 96% and 89%, respectively. The 2- and 5-year disease-free survivals (DFSs) were 88% and 72%, respectively. The 2-year DFS per stage was 100% for IA, 88% for IB1, 100% for IB2, and 83% for II. The 5-year DFS per stage was 100% for stage IA and 75% for IB1. The complications were as expected for radical hysterectomy.

Conclusions

This series confirms the feasibility and safety of RRH not only in cervical cancer stage IA to IB1, but also after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage IB2 to IIB.

The effect of increased experience on complications in robotic hysterectomy for malignant and benign gynecological disease

The study objective was to assess the effect of increased experience on complications in robotic hysterectomy for malignant and benign gynecological disease. This is a retrospective cohort study. It is a Canadian Task Force classification II-2 study conducted at the University Hospital, Sweden. The patients were 949 women planned for robotic hysterectomy for malignant (75 %) and benign (25 %) gynecological disease between October 2005 and December 2013. They were continuously evaluated for the rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications up to 1-year post-surgery, the latter according to Clavien-Dindo classification following the introduction of robotic surgery with special awareness of complications possibly related to robot-specific risk factors, the description of refinement of practice and assessment of the effect of these measures. The rate of intraoperative complications, the overall rate of complications and the rate of ≥grade 3 complications decreased from the first to the last time period (4.8 vs 2.6 %, p = 0.037, 34 vs 19 %, p = 0.003 and 13.5 vs 3.2 %, p = 0.0003, respectively). The rate of intraoperative complications and the rate of postoperative complications possibly related to robot-specific risk factors was reduced from the first to the last time period (3.8 vs 0.6 %, p = 0.028 and 7.7 vs 1.5 %, p = 0.003, respectively). In patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy for malignant and benign gynecological disease intraoperative and postoperative complications and complications possibly related to the robotic approach diminish with training, experience and refinement of practice.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Management of Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: An Analysis of the Risk Factors of Surgical Complications and of Oncologic Outcomes

Objectives

The objective of this study was to evaluate the morbidity and the oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in treating early-stage cervical cancer.

Methods

We included all patients with early-stage cervical cancer (IA, IB1, IIA1, and IIB), as assessed by the Federation International of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging criteria, undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy from January 1999 to December 2013 in our center. Morbidity was classified according to the Clavien and Dindo classification.

Results

A total of 170 patients were included in which 7 patients were in stage IA2, 150 in IB1, 2 in IIA, and 7 in IIB. The mean operation time was 256 minutes (67–495 minutes). Fourteen severe perioperative complications (8.2%) occurred, in which 5 patients (2.9%) required conversion to an open procedure: 3 bowel injuries, 3 hemorrhages, 2 ureteral injuries, 3 bladder injuries, 2 severe adhesions, and 1 intolerance to the Trendelenburg position. Fourteen patients (8.2%) presented with 1 severe postoperative complication (grade III or more). Two factors appeared as independent risk factors for perioperative and/or postoperative complications: the tumor size (odds ratio, 1.128; 95% confidence interval, 1.054–1.207) and operative time (odds ratio, 1.0116; 95% confidence interval, 1.003–1.020). In a median follow-up of 47.7 months, the 5-year overall survival was 94.1% (range, 88.1%–97.3%), and the 5-year disease-free survival was 88.8% (range, 81.0%–92.6%).

Conclusions

The laparoscopic approach was favorable for both perioperative and postoperative morbidity. With the advantage of minimal invasiveness, laparoscopic treatment by experienced surgeons is an alternative for early-stage cervical cancer with correct long-term survival outcomes. Mini-invasive surgery could be the standard in early-stage cervical cancer.

Perioperative complications of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery using three robotic arms at a single institution

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate perioperative complications of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent elective robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery between February 2006 and December 2013 were identified. Robotic procedures were performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Patient demographic data and operative outcomes were prospectively collected in a computerized database and extracted for this study.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety eight patients were identified during the study period. One case was converted to conventional laparoscopy due to mechanical failure of the robot system before the procedure and excluded from review. The median age and body mass index of patients were 48 years and 23.0 kg/m², respectively. The majority (n=130, 43.6%) of operative procedures was radical hysterectomy, followed by endometrial cancer staging (n=112, 37.6%), total hysterectomy (n=39, 13.1%), and myomectomy (n=17, 5.7%). The median operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay were 208.5 min, 184.8 mL, and 8.9 days, respectively. The overall complication rate was 18.8% and that for only oncologic cases was 16.1%. Intraoperative complications (n=5, 1.7%) consisted of three vessel injuries, one bowel content leakage during an appendectomy during endometrial cancer staging and one case of bladder injury during radical hysterectomy. Early and late postoperative complications were 14.4% and 2.7%, respectively. Five patients (1.7%) experienced grade 3 complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification and therefore needed further intervention.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a feasible approach in gynecology with acceptable complications.

WITHDRAWN: Robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer

This review is being withdrawn as now superceded by a new review covering both malignant an benign disease: Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu D, Dowswell T, Song H, Wang L, Shi G. Robot‐assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD011422. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2 (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2/full )

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

BACKGROUND

This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 5) and the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, to complement the searches of the original malignant and benign disease reviews (conducted up to July 2010 and November 2011, respectively), from July 2010 to June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We subgrouped data according to type of procedure and pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3. We performed sensitivity analyses by excluding studies at high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs involving 517 women. Most were at low to moderate overall risk of bias; one was at high risk of bias. Four studies evaluated RAS for hysterectomy (371 women), and two studies evaluated RAS for sacrocolpopexy (146 women). All studies compared RAS with CLS, except for one study, which compared RAS with CLS or a vaginal surgical approach for hysterectomy. Confidence intervals for the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications included benefits with either approach when they were analysed together (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.99; participants = 513; studies = 6; I(2) = 74%) and separately (low-quality evidence). Moderate-quality evidence was found for the effects of RAS on intraoperative injury when compared with CLS (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.46; participants = 415; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%), along with low-quality evidence for bleeding and infection complications.Mean total operating time was consistent across procedures and on average was about 42 minutes longer in the RAS arm compared with the CLS arm (95% CI 17 to 66 minutes; participants = 294; studies = 4; I(2) = 82%; moderate-quality evidence). Mean hospital stay for hysterectomy procedures was on average about seven hours shorter in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; participants = 217; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). The estimated effect of conversion with RAS compared with CLS was imprecise (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.12; participants = 337; studies = 4; I(2) = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Limited data from two studies suggest that RAS for sacrocolpopexy may be associated with increased postoperative pain compared with CLS; this needs further investigation. We identified five ongoing trials-four of cancer surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain as to whether RAS or CLS has lower intraoperative and postoperative complication rates because of the imprecision of the effect and inconsistency among studies when they are used for hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that these procedures take longer with RAS but may be associated with a shorter hospital stay following hysterectomy. We found limited evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for surgical procedures performed for gynaecological cancer; therefore its use should be limited to clinical trials. Ongoing trials are likely to have an important impact on evidence related to the use of RAS in gynaecology.

A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the hospital cost and short-term clinical outcome of traditional minimally invasive hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy in women primarily not considered candidates for vaginal surgery.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial (Canadian Task Force classification I).

SETTING

University Hospital in Sweden.

PATIENTS

One hundred twenty-two women with uterine size ≤ 16 gestational weeks scheduled to undergo minimally invasive hysterectomy because of benign disease.

INTERVENTIONS

Robot-assisted hysterectomy or traditional vaginal or laparoscopic minimally invasive hysterectomy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

All women underwent surgery as randomized. There were no demographic differences between the 2 groups. Vaginal hysterectomy was possible in 41% in the traditional minimally invasive group, at a mean hospital cost of $4579 compared with $7059 for traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy. This was reflected in a mean hospital cost of $993 more per robotic-assisted hysterectomy than for traditional minimally invasive hysterectomy when the robot was a preexisting investment. This hospital cost increased by $1607 when including investments and cost of maintenance. A per-protocol subanalysis comparing laparoscopy and robotics demonstrated similar hospital cost when the robot was a preexisting investment ($7059 vs $7016). Robotic-assisted hysterectomy was associated with less blood loss and fewer postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

A similar hospital cost can be attained for laparoscopy and robotics when the robot is a preexisting investment. From the perspective of hospital costs, robotic-assisted hysterectomy is not advantageous for treating benign conditions when a vaginal approach is feasible in a high proportion of patients.

Robotic surgery for gynaecologic cancer: an overview

After decades of reluctance to change surgical approaches, new technologies have created new perspectives for surgery. Initially, the laparoscopic approach was considered to be only one useful for relatively simple procedures as the design of the instruments and the limited access hampered free movements to perform complicated surgery. Robotic systems overcame this problem and boosted the use of minimally invasive techniques also for radical gynaecological surgery. Robot-assisted laparoscopy can now routinely be used for the surgical treatment of early or downstaged cervical carcinoma, endometrial carcinoma and staging of early ovarian carcinoma. Robot-assisted laparoscopy has proven to be feasible, although the benefits for the patient are less clear than those for the surgeon. The main advantage of robot-assisted laparoscopy over conventional laparoscopy is probably not that it is safer or better, but that it allows more types of radical surgery to be performed and that it prevents the surgeon from developing complaints and muscular conditions that interfere with the ability to perform surgery. New applications have emerged with the introduction of new devices to be used in conjunction with the robotic system as well as with totally new robotic systems. Training in these new tools should be more systematic and structured to allow their safe introduction and use.

Aspects of Therapy for Cervical Cancer in Germany 2012 - Results from a Survey of German Gynaecological Hospitals

Introduction: In spite of the existence of guidelines and international recommendations, many aspects in the diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of patients with cervical cancer are not based on validated data. A broad spectrum of different opinions and procedures concerning the therapy for patients with cervical cancer is under controversial discussion by the responsible gynaecologists in German hospitals. Methods: The present study is intended to picture the current treatment situation for cervical cancer in Germany. For this purpose a specially developed questionnaire with questions divided into 19 subsections was sent to all 688 gynaecological hospitals in Germany. Results: The response rate to the questionnaire was 34 %. 91 % of the hospitals treated between 0 and 25 patients with cervical cancer per year. 7.5 % treated between 26 and 50 and 1.4 % of the hospitals more than 50 patients per year. The bimanual examination was the most frequently used staging method (98 %); PET-CT was the least used staging method (2.3 %). Interestingly 48 % of the hospitals used surgical staging. The great majority of the hospitals (71 %) used abdominal radical hysterectomy (Wertheim-Meigs operation) to treat their patients. TMMR via laparotomy was used by 13 %. 16 % of the hospitals performed laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomies. The sentinel concept was hardly used even in the early stages. It must be emphasised that in 74 % of the hospitals radical hysterectomies were performed even in cases with positive pelvic lymph nodes and in 43 % also in cases with positive paraaortic lymph nodes. The therapy of choice for FIGO IIB cancers is primary radiochemotherapy (RCTX) in 21 % of the hospitals; operative staging followed by radiochemotherapy in 24 % and treatment by radical hysterectomy followed by adjuvant RCTX was employed in this situation by 46 % of the hospitals. In 15-97 % of the hospitals for node-negative and in sano resected patients in stage pT1B1/1B2 after radical hysterectomy, an adjuvant RCTX is recommended when further risk factors exist (LVSI, tumour > 4 cm, age < 40 years, adenocarcinoma, S3). Conclusion: A broad spectrum of differing staging and therapy concepts is in use for patients with cervical cancer in Germany. A standardisation of therapy is needed. An update of national guidelines could help to achieve more transparency and a standardisation of treatment for patients with cervical cancer.

Benefit of robot-assisted laparoscopy in nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: urinary morbidity in early cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer by robot-assisted laparoscopy and atonic bladder rate.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study with consecutive patients in three gynecological oncology departments. Patients with <2 cm cervical cancer had nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy by robot-assisted laparoscopy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Two days after surgery, we systematically removed the Foley bladder catheter.

RESULTS

The median (range) age and body mass index of the 30 patients were 44 (33-68) years and 23.9 (17.7-39.4) kg/m(2), respectively. The median (range) tumor diameter at the time of surgery was 13 (4-38) mm. The median (range) operative time, blood loss, and number of pelvic lymph nodes (any common iliac lymph nodes) were 305 (180-405) min, 100 (30-1,500) ml, and 18 (7-28). The overall complication rate was 52.3 %, of which 6.7 % atonic bladder. Twenty-eight patients (93.3 %) were discharged 2 days after surgery with spontaneous voiding and no residual urine >100 ml.

CONCLUSIONS

Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy by robot-assisted laparoscopy is feasible in early cervical cancer (<2 cm). A total of 93.3 % of the patients were discharged 2 days after surgery with spontaneous voiding. The next step would be a prospective study with objective urodynamic investigations.

Vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: rationale, technique, results

The authors conclude that vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is an oncologic viable alternative to abdominal radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy, totally laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, and robotic radical hysterectomy.

Objective:

Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) makes it difficult to resect adequate vaginal cuff according to tumor size and to avoid tumor spread after opening the vagina. Laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) is associated with higher risk for urologic complications.

Methods:

The vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (VALRH) technique comprises 3 steps: (1) comprehensive laparoscopic staging, (2) creation of a tumor-adapted vaginal cuff, and (3) laparoscopic transsection of parametria. We retrospectively analyzed data of 122 patients who underwent VALRH for early stage cervical cancer (n=110) or stage II endometrial cancer (n=12) between January 2007 and December 2009 at Charité University Berlin.

Results:

All patients underwent VALRH without conversion. Mean operating time was 300 minutes, and mean blood loss was 123cc. On average, 36 lymph nodes were harvested. Intra- and postoperative complication rates were 0% and 13.1%, respectively. Resection was in sound margins in all patients. After median follow-up of 19 months, disease-free survival and overall survival for all 110 cervical cancer patients was 94% and 98%, and for the subgroup of patients (n=90) with tumors ≤pT1b1 N0 V0 L0/1 R0, 97% and 98%, respectively.

Conclusion:

VALRH is a valid alternative to abdominal radical hysterectomy and LARVH in patients with early-stage cervical cancer and endometrial cancer stage II with minimal intraoperative complications and identical oncologic outcomes.

Robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is the latest innovation in the field of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgical systems have been used to perform surgery for endometrial, cervical cancer and ovarian cancer. There is mounting evidence which demonstrates the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for gynaecological oncology.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence for and against robotic assisted surgery in gynaecological cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to July 2010) and citation lists of relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer to laparoscopic or open surgical procedures as well as RCTs comparing different types of robotic assistants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. No RCTs were identified, therefore data collection and analysis could not be performed.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were found that met the inclusion criteria. Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) are summarised and analysed, but are not discussed in the main body of the review as they present a high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Well-designed RCTs are required as only low quality evidence from CCTs is available. These studies support the use of robotic assisted surgery for endometrial cancer and cervical cancer, but these findings present a high risk of bias.

Robot-assisted removal of a lymphocyst causing severe neuralgic pain and adductor atrophy

Following a robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, a 53-year-old woman was diagnosed with a 50-mm right-sided pelvic lymphocyst by the use of vaginal ultrasonography. She gradually developed intermittent increasingly severe neuralgic pain mimicking a meralgia paresthetica. A neurolysis was proposed by the neurosurgeons. Awaiting this intervention, a pelvic MRI revealed a partial atrophy of the ipsilateral adductor muscles and a probable entrapment of the obturator nerve by the lymphocyst as an alternative cause of the pain. Using a four-arm da Vinci-S-HD robot the lymphocyst, located deep in the right obturator fossa and surrounding the obturator nerve, was completely removed, sparing the partially atrophic obturator nerve. No bleeding occurred. The surgery time was 95 min. At 10 months' follow-up the patient was relieved of her pain with no signs of a new lymphocyst.

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.

From laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy to vaginal assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment for patients with early stage cervical cancer. The majority of radical hysterectomies are performed with the open technique. However, laparoscopic, combined laparoscopic and vaginal, and robotic-assisted approaches may also be used. Compared with the abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), laparoscopic techniques are associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, better cosmesis, and faster recovery. A further breakthrough in laparoscopic technique can only be made if safety and oncological clearance are comparable with ARH. We describe the technique and results of laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and the transition to vaginal assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.

Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: review of surgical and oncological outcomes

Robot-assisted procedures are being increasingly incorporated in gynaecologic oncology. Several studies have confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy for selected patients with early-stage cervical cancer. It has been demonstrated that robotic radical hysterectomy offers an advantage over other surgical approaches with regard to operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay. Also initial evidences concerning oncological outcomes seem to confirm the equivalence to traditional open technique. Despite the fact that costs of robotic system are still high, they could be partially offset by several health-related and social benefits: less pain, faster dismissal, and return to full activity than other surgical approaches. The development of robotic technology may facilitate the spread of minimally invasive surgery in gynaecological oncology, overcoming some drawbacks of laparoscopic technique for challenging intervention such as radical hysterectomy. Further studies are needed to evaluate overall and disease-free survival of this technique and associated morbidity after adjuvant therapies.