Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: impact on fellowship training

Graduate and Continuing Medical Education of Placenta Accreta Spectrum

Surgical training experience in obstetrics-gynecology (OB-GYN) residency and fellowship training, particularly in open abdominal surgeries has declined over the last 2 decades. This is due, in part, due to a universal trend toward non-invasive treatments for gynecologic conditions once treated surgically. Management of placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) often requires complex surgical skills, including, but not limited to highly complex hysterectomy. The decline in surgical case numbers has fallen as the incidence of PAS has risen, which we anticipate will lead to a gap in critical skills needed for graduating obstetrician-gynecologists to able to safely care for people with PAS.

The Academic Impact of Advanced Clinical Fellowship Training among General Thoracic Surgeons

OBJECTIVE

Advanced clinical fellowship training has become a popular option for surgical trainees seeking to bolster their clinical training and expertise. However, the long-term academic impact of this additional training following a traditional thoracic surgery fellowship is unknown. This study aimed to delineate the impact of an advanced clinical fellowship on subsequent research productivity and advancement in academic career among general thoracic surgeons.

METHODS

Using an internally constructed database of active, academic general thoracic surgeons who are current faculty at accredited cardiothoracic surgery training programs within the United States, surgeons were dichotomized according to whether an advanced clinical fellowship was completed or not. Academic career metrics measured by research productivity, scholarly impact (H-index), funding by the National Institutes of Health, and academic rank were compared.

RESULTS

Among 285 general thoracic surgeons, 89 (31.2%) underwent an advanced fellowship, whereas 196 (68.8%) did not complete an advanced fellowship. The most commonly pursued advanced fellowship was minimally invasive thoracic surgery (32.0%). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of gender, international medical training, or postgraduate education. Those who completed an advanced clinical fellowship were less likely to have completed a dedicated research fellowship compared to those who had not completed any additional clinical training (58.4% vs. 74.0%, p = 0.0124). Surgeons completing an advanced clinical fellowship demonstrated similar cumulative first-author publications (p = 0.4572), last-author publications (p = 0.7855), H-index (p = 0.9651), National Institutes of Health funding (p = 0.7540), and years needed to advance to associate professor (p = 0.3410) or full rank professor (p = 0.1545) compared to surgeons who did not complete an advanced fellowship. These findings persisted in sub-analyses controlling for surgeons completing a dedicated research fellowship.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic general thoracic surgeons completing an advanced clinical fellowship demonstrate similar research output and ascend the academic ladder at a similar pace as those not pursuing additional training.

Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery for Gynecologic Cancers: A Review

Minimally invasive robotic surgery has become an effective surgical technique for the treatment of gynecologic malignancies. This article reviews the current utilization of robotic surgery and its role for future treatment in gynecologic oncology.

Learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpo(recto)pexy: a cumulative sum analysis

BACKGROUND

Determination of the learning curve of new techniques is essential to improve safety and efficiency. Limited information is available regarding learning curves in robot-assisted laparoscopic pelvic floor surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the learning curve in robot-assisted laparoscopic pelvic floor surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrocolporectopexy were included (n=372). Patients were treated in a teaching hospital with a tertiary referral function for gynecologic/multicompartment prolapse. Procedures were performed by 2 experienced conventional laparoscopic surgeons (surgeons A and B). Baseline demographics were scored per groups of 25 consecutive patients. The primary outcome was the determination of proficiency, which was based on intraoperative complications. Cumulative sum control chart analysis allowed us to detect small shifts in a surgeon's performance. Proficiency was obtained when the first acceptable boundary line of cumulative sum control chart analysis was crossed. Secondary outcomes that were examined were shortening and/or stabilization of surgery time (measured with the use of cumulative sum control chart analysis and the moving average method).

RESULTS

Surgeon A performed 242 surgeries; surgeon B performed 137 surgeries (n=7 surgeries were performed by both surgeons). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1.9% of the procedures. The learning curve never fell below the unacceptable failure limits and stabilized after 23 of 41 cases. Proficiency was obtained after 78 cases for both surgeons. Surgery time decreased after 24-29 cases in robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (no distinct pattern for robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy). Limitations were the inclusion of 2 interventions and concomitant procedures, which limited homogeneity. Furthermore, analyses treated all complications in cumulative sum as equal weight, although there are differences in the clinical relevance of complications.

CONCLUSION

After 78 cases, proficiency was obtained. After 24-29 cases, surgery time stabilized for robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy. In this age of rapidly changing surgical techniques, it can be difficult to determine the learning curve of each procedure. Cumulative sum control chart analysis can assist with this determination and prove to be a valuable tool. Training programs could be individualized to improve both surgical performance and patient benefits.

Impact of Sentinel Node Approach in Gynecologic Cancer on Training Needs

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We sought to estimate the impact of sentinel nodes in gynecologic oncology on fellowship training and discuss potential solutions.

DESIGN

Retrospective multi-institution cohort (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Three tertiary cancer referral cancer centers.

PATIENTS

Patients with endometrial and vulvar cancer undergoing lymph node evaluation.

INTERVENTIONS

Patient history and fellow case volumes were evaluated retrospectively for type of lymph node assessment.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Minimally invasive endometrial cancer and vulvar cancer fellow case volumes in 3 large institutions were reviewed and average annual volumes calculated for each clinical gynecologic oncology fellow. For vulvar cancer, probabilities of sentinel lymph node mapping and laterality of lesions were estimated from the literature. For endometrial cancer, estimates of lymphadenectomy rates were determined using probabilities calculated from our historic database and from review of the literature. Modeling the approaches to lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (full, selective, and sentinel), 100% versus 68% versus 24%, respectively, of patients would require complete pelvic lymphadenectomy and 100% versus 34% versus 12% would require para-aortic lymphadenectomy. In vulvar cancer, rates of inguinal femoral lymphadenectomy are expected to drop from 81% of unilateral groins to only 12% of groins.

CONCLUSIONS

Sentinel lymph node biopsy for endometrial and vulvar cancer will play an increasing role in practice, and coincident with this will be a dramatic decrease in pelvic, para-aortic, and inguinal femoral lymphadenectomies. The declining numbers will require new strategies to maintain competency in our specialty. New approaches to surgical training and continued medical education will be necessary to ensure adequate training for fellows and young faculty across gynecologic surgery.

Learning tools and simulation in robotic surgery: state of the art

Robotic surgery has emerged as a new technology over the last decade and has brought with it new challenges, particularly in terms of teaching and training. To overcome these challenges, robotic courses, virtual simulation, and dual consoles have been successfully introduced. In fact, there are several simulators currently on the market that have proven to be a valid option for training, especially for the novice trainee. Robotic courses have also found success around the world, allowing participants to implement robotic programs at their institution, typically with the help of a proctor. More recently, the dual console has enabled two surgeons to be operating at the same time. Having one experienced surgeon and one trainee each at his or her own console has made it an obvious choice for training. Although these methods have been successfully introduced, the data remain relatively scarce concerning their role in training. The aim of this article was to review the various methods and tools involved in the training of surgeons in robotic surgery.

Surgical outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy using three robotic arms versus conventional multiport laparoscopy in patients with cervical cancer

PURPOSE

To compare surgical outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) using 3 robotic arms with those of conventional laparoscopy in patients with early cervical cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study included 102 patients with stage 1A1-IIA2 cervical carcinoma, of whom 60 underwent robotic and 42 underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) with pelvic lymph node dissection performed between December 2009 and May 2013. Perioperative outcomes were compared between two surgical groups.

RESULTS

Robotic approach consisted of 3 robotic arms including the camera arm and 1 conventional assistant port. Laparoscopic approach consisted of four trocar insertions with conventional instruments. There were no conversions to laparotomy. Mean age, body mass index, tumor size, cell type, and clinical stage were not significantly different between two cohorts. RRH showed favorable outcomes over LRH in terms of estimated blood loss (100 mL vs. 145 mL, p=0.037), early postoperative complication rates (16.7% vs. 30.9%, p=0.028), and postoperative complications necessitating intervention by Clavien-Dindo classification. Total operative time (200.5±61.1 minutes vs. 215.6±83.1 minutes, p=0.319), mean number of lymph node yield (23.3±9.3 vs. 21.7±9.8, p=0.248), and median length of postoperative hospital stay (11 days vs. 10 days, p=0.129) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic group, respectively. The median follow-up time was 44 months with 2 recurrences in the robotic and 3 in the laparoscopic cohort.

CONCLUSION

Surgical outcomes of RRH and pelvic lymphadenectomy were comparable to that of laparoscopic approach, with significantly less blood loss and early postoperative complications.

Robotic surgery training in gynecologic fellowship programs in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The increasing use and acceptance of robotic platforms calls for the need to train not only established surgeons but also residents and fellow trainees within the context of the traditional residency and fellowship program. Our study aimed to clarify the current status of robotic training in gynecologic fellowship programs in the United States.

METHODS

This was a Web-based survey of four gynecology fellowship programs in the United States from November 2010 to March 2011. Programs were selected based on their geographic areas. A questionnaire with 43 questions inquiring about robotic surgery performance and training was sent to the programs and either a fellow or the fellowship director was asked to complete. Participation was voluntary.

RESULTS

We had 102 responders (18% respond rate) with an almost equal response rate from all four gynecologic fellowships, with a median response rate of 25% (range 21-29%). Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) and Gynecologic Oncology (Gyn Onc) fellowships had the highest rate of robotic training in their fellowship curriculum-95% and 83%, respectively. Simulator training was used as a training tool in 74% of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS); however, just 22% of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility fellowships had simulator training. Eighty-seven percent of Gyn Onc fellows graduate with >50 robotic cases, but this was 0% for Reproductive Endocrinology Infertility fellows.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the use of a robotic system was built into fellowship curriculum of >80% of MIS and Gyn Onc fellowship programs that were entered in our study. Simulator training has been used widely in Ob&Gyn fellowship programs as part of their robotic training curriculum.

Successful incorporation of robotic surgery into gynecologic oncology fellowship training

BACKGROUND

The increasing role of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology may impact fellowship training. The purpose of this study was to review the proportion of robotic procedures performed by fellows at the console, and compare operative times and lymph node yields to faculty surgeons.

METHODS

A prospective database of women undergoing robotic gynecologic surgery has been maintained since 2008. Intra-operative datasheets completed include surgical times and primary surgeon at the console. Operative times were compared between faculty and fellows for simple hysterectomy (SH), bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), pelvic (PLND) and paraaortic lymph node dissection (PALND) and vaginal cuff closure (VCC). Lymph nodes counts were also compared.

RESULTS

Times were recorded for 239 SH, 43 BSOs, 105 right PLNDs, 104 left PLNDs, 34 PALND and 269 VCC. Comparing 2008 to 2011, procedures performed by the fellow significantly increased; SH 16% to 83% (p<0.001), BSO 7% to 75% (p=0.005), right PLND 4% to 44% (p<0.001), left PLND 0% to 56% (p<0.001), and VCC 59% to 82% (p=0.024). Console times (min) were similar for SH (60 vs. 63, p=0.73), BSO (48 vs. 43, p=0.55), and VCC (20 vs. 22, p=0.26). Faculty times (min) were shorter for PLND (right 26 vs. 30, p=0.04, left 23 vs. 27, p=0.02). Nodal counts were not significantly different (right 7 vs. 8, p=0.17 or left 7 vs. 7, p=0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery can be successfully incorporated into gynecologic oncology fellowship training. With increased exposure to robotic surgery, fellows had similar operative times and lymph node yields as faculty surgeons.

Dual-console robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery with respect to surgical outcomes in a gynecologic oncology fellowship program

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive surgical techniques decrease surgical morbidity and recovery time. Studies demonstrate similar surgical outcomes comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery. These studies have not accounted for the incorporation of fellow education. With the dual-console da Vinci Si Surgical System®, a two surgeon approach could be performed. We sought to compare surgical outcomes at a gynecologic oncology fellowship program of traditional laparoscopic to robotic surgeries using the dual-console system.

METHODS

We identified patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery performed by a gynecologic oncologist from November 2009-November 2010. Robotic surgeries were conducted using the dual-console, utilizing a two surgeon approach. Surgeries involved a staff physician with a gynecologic oncology fellow. Statistical analysis was performed using student t-test and chi-squared analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 222 cases were identified. Cases were analyzed in groups: all cases identified, all cancer cases, and endometrial cancer cases only. When analyzing all cases, no statistical difference was noted in total operating room time (172 vs. 175 min; p=0.6), pelvic lymph nodes removed (10.1 vs. 9.6; p=0.69), para-aortic lymph nodes dissected (3.7 vs. 3.8; p=0.91), or length of stay (1.5 vs. 1.3 days; p=0.3). There was a significant difference in total surgical time (131 vs.110 min; p<0.0001) and EBL (157 vs.94 ml; p<0.0001), favoring robotic surgery. When analyzing all cancer cases, the advantage in total surgical time for robotic surgery was lost. Complications were similar between cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating fellow education into robotic surgery does not adversely affect outcomes when compared to traditional laparoscopic surgery.

[Robotic surgery in endometrial cancer: a review]

Robotic surgery has spread for a few years. This access is now important in urologic surgery, especially for prostatic procedures. Development of robotic surgery in gynecology is more recent. Gynecologic oncology is probably one of the most interesting fields of development of this access. Robotic surgery is frequently used in endometrial cancer. As no randomized study is available, it seems to be interesting to make a review of retrospective studies. Feasibility seems to be high and the learning curve is short (around 20 cases). Operative lengths are longer when compared to laparotomy, but are similar or shorter than laparoscopy. Robot setting increases the global length of the procedure, but decreases with experience. Operative blood loss, as well as transfusion rate are decreased when compared to laparotomy, but are similar to those of laparoscopy. The overall morbidity rate seems lower than with other approaches. Postoperative pain, hospital stay and time to recovery are decreased when compared to laparotomy as well as to laparoscopy for some authors. The main limit to the diffusion of robotic surgery is accessibility because of its important cost. Other limits are pointed out by the most trained teams.

Developing a successful robotics program

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advancements in the robotic surgical technology have revolutionized the standard of care for many surgical procedures. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the important considerations in developing a new robotics program at a given healthcare institution.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients' interest in robotic-assisted surgery has and continues to grow because of improved outcomes and decreased periods of hospitalization. Resulting market forces have created a solid foundation for the implementation of robotic surgery into surgical practice. Given proper surgeon experience and an efficient system, robotic-assisted procedures have been cost comparable to open surgical alternatives. Surgeon training and experience is closely linked to the efficiency of a new robotics program. Formally trained robotic surgeons have better patient outcomes and shorter operative times. Training in robotics has shown no negative impact on patient outcomes or mentor learning curves.

SUMMARY

Individual economic factors of local healthcare settings must be evaluated when planning for a new robotics program. The high cost of the robotic surgical platform is best offset with a large surgical volume. A mature, experienced surgeon is integral to the success of a new robotics program.

Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery is growing rapidly and there is an increasing need for a structured approach to train future robotic surgeons.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature on training and learning strategies for robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the Journal of Robotic Surgery was performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included articles concerning training, learning, education and teaching of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery in any specialism.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected articles to be included. We categorised the included articles into: training modalities, learning curve, training future surgeons, curriculum design and implementation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 114 full text articles. Training modalities such as didactic training, skills training (dry lab, virtual reality, animal or cadaver models), case observation, bedside assisting, proctoring and the mentoring console can be used for training in robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery. Several training programmes in general and specific programmes designed for residents, fellows and surgeons are described in the literature. We provide guidelines for development of a structured training programme.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgical training consists of system training and procedural training. System training should be formally organised and should be competence based, instead of time based. Virtual reality training will play an import role in the near future. Procedural training should be organised in a stepwise approach with objective assessment of each step. This review aims to facilitate and improve the implementation of structured robotic surgical training programmes.

[Interest of robot-assisted laparoscopy in the initial surgical training: Resident survey]

OBJECTIVE

This survey evaluated if residents felt a benefit to their participation in robot-assisted procedures and highlights the interest of robot in the initial surgical training.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was submitted to 33 residents participating as assistants in robot-assisted surgical procedures in our department and to seven residents of the Chapel Hill hospital, North Carolina, USA. Items rated their experience with the robot, their feeling during the surgical procedures and whether they thought they improved their technical skills.

RESULTS

The majority of French residents felt passive during the procedures (97%) or bored (75%); most of them found an immediate interest to learn anatomy (72.7%) and surgical procedures (66.7%). Then, a minority of them reported an improvement of their knowledge in anatomy (39.4%), in surgical procedures (24.2%), and conventional laparoscopy (9.1%). Most of French residents are not willing to repeat the experience as an assistant (81.8%), whereas they showed great interest in practicing robot-assisted surgery later. The oldest residents benefited more than younger in learning anatomy and surgical procedures. US resident' ratings concerning the contribution of the robot in their training were generally more positive. They were all convinced they made progress in anatomy, as in surgical techniques and they all wanted to repeat such procedures.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This work demonstrates the pedagogical value of using the robot for teaching surgical procedures and anatomy. It also suggests the establishment of training programs dedicated to the learning of robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology, in parallel with training in conventional laparoscopy.

Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and staging for the treatment of endometrial cancer: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy and abdominal approaches

The treatment of endometrial cancer using a minimally invasive approach provides benefits to the patient; however, there are currently few papers comparing robotic total laparoscopic hysterectomy with staging to conventional laparoscopic and abdominal approaches. Analyses of 102 consecutive patients undergoing robotic total hysterectomy were compared to historical cohorts of 104 patients undergoing laparoscopic total hysterectomy and 78 patients undergoing abdominal total hysterectomy (laparotomy). The majority of all patients were FIGO'88 stage IB. Patient characteristics were similar, except for lower age (P = 0.0236) and body mass index (P = 0.0134) in the laparoscopy group when compared to laparotomy. Operative time was longer for the robotic group at 108.7 min, compared to 79.4 min for laparoscopy (P = 0.0207) and 84.0 min for laparotomy (P < 0.0001). Lymph node yield was significantly higher in the robotic group (16.0 nodes) when compared to both laparoscopy (5.0 nodes, P < 0.0001) and laparotomy (11.4 nodes, P = 0.0006). The perioperative complication rates were significantly decreased in both the robotic (10.8%) and laparoscopy (6.7%) groups when compared to laparotomy at 25.6% (P = 0.0089; P = 0.0002). Hospital stay was significantly reduced in both the robotic (1.9 days, P < 0.0001) and laparoscopic (1.8 days, P < 0.0001) groups when compared to laparotomy (4.1 days). Both minimally invasive approaches reduced morbidity. Robotic assistance resulted in improved lymph node yield. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer is at least equivalent to laparoscopic and open techniques and may be the preferred method for treatment of endometrial cancer.

Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: analysis of first 1000 cases

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine outcomes in an expanding robotic surgery (RS) program.

STUDY DESIGN

In all, 1000 women underwent RS from May 2006 through December 2009. We analyzed patient characteristics and outcomes. A total of 377 women undergoing RS for endometrial cancer staging (ECS) were compared with the historical data of 131 undergoing open ECS.

RESULTS

For the entire RS cohort of 1000, the conversion rate was 2.9%. Body mass index increased over 3 time intervals: T1 = 26.2, T2 = 29.5, T3 = 30.1 (T1:T2, P = .01; T1:T3, P = .0001; T2:T3, P = .037). Increasing body mass index was not associated with increased major complications: T1 = 8.7%, T2 = 4.3%, T3 = 5.7%. In the ECS cohort, as compared with open ECS, women undergoing RS had lower blood loss (46.9 vs 197.6 mL, P < .0001), shorter hospitalization (1.4 vs 5.3 days, P < .0001), fewer major complications (6.4% vs 20.6%, P < .0001), with higher lymph node counts (15.5 vs 13.1, P = .007).

CONCLUSION

RS is associated with favorable morbidity and conversion rates in an unselected cohort. Compared to laparotomy, robotic ECS results in improved outcomes.

Robotic surgical management of endometrial cancer in octogenarians and nonagenarians: analysis of perioperative outcomes and review of the literature

The primary aim of this article is to report the outcomes of octogenarians and nonagenarians who have undergone robotic surgery for endometrial cancer. A multi-institutional research consortium was created to evaluate the utility of robotics for gynecologic surgery (benign and malignant). IRB approval was obtained at each institution. A multi-institutional HIPPA compliant database was then created and analyzed for all patients that underwent robotic-assisted surgery with staging for endometrial cancer between the April 2003 and January 2009. In total, 395 patients were identified. A subset of patients between the ages of 80 and 95 years were then identified and analyzed for demographic data and perioperative outcomes. Twenty-seven patients in this age group were identified who underwent robotic-assisted hysterectomy and staging. The median age was 84, and median body mass index was 28. Comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension were identified in 22 and 74% of patients, respectively. Over one-half (56%) of the patients reported a prior abdominal surgery. Final pathological analysis demonstrated that 88% of all patients had either Stage I or II disease. The median operative time was 192 min. The median estimated blood loss was 50 cc, and the median lymph node count was 16. The median hospital stay was 1.0 day. The overall intraoperative and postoperative complication rate was 7.4 and 33%, respectively. No patient received a blood transfusion. There was one conversion to laparotomy (3.7%). A comparison of the outcomes of the elderly cohort to those of all patients in the database (control group) revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, nodal yield, or conversion rate. Intraoperative complications were statistically similar between the groups; however, postoperative complications were significantly higher in the elderly cohort. We conclude that robotic surgery is safe, feasible, and expands surgical options for octogenarians and nonagenarians diagnosed with endometrial cancer. Age should not be considered a contraindication for robotic surgical management of patients with endometrial cancer.

Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center

OBJECTIVE

To compare peri- and post-operative complications and outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging with traditional laparoscopic surgical staging for women with endometrial cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of cases of women undergoing minimally invasive total hysterectomy and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy by a robotic-assisted approach or traditional laparoscopic approach was conducted. Major intraoperative complications, including vascular injury, enterotomy, cystotomy, or conversion to laparotomy, were measured. Secondary outcomes including operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, number of lymph nodes retrieved, and the length of hospitalization were also measured.

RESULTS

275 cases were identified-102 patients with robotic-assisted staging and 173 patients with traditional laparoscopic staging. There was no significant difference in the rate of major complications between groups (p=0.13). The mean operative time was longer in cases of robotic-assisted staging (237 min vs. 178 min, p<0.0001); however, blood loss was significantly lower (109 ml vs. 187 ml, p<0.0001). The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved were similar between groups (p=0.32). There were no significant differences in the time to discharge, re-admission, or re-operation rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted surgery is an acceptable alternative to laparoscopy for minimally invasive staging of endometrial cancer. In addition to the improved ease of operation, visualization, and range of motion of the robotic instruments, robotic surgery results in a lower mean blood loss, although longer operative time. More data are needed to determine if the rates of urinary tract injuries and other surgical complications can be reduced with the use of robotic surgery.