Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: Comparison with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy; one surgeon's experience at the Norwegian Radium Hospital

A meta-analysis examining the impact of open surgical therapy versus minimally invasive surgery on wound infection in females with cervical cancer

A meta-analysis study was executed to measure the effect of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open surgical management (OSM) on wound infection (WI) in female's cervical cancer (CC). A comprehensive literature study till February 2023 was applied and 1675 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 41 chosen investigations enclosed 10 204 females with CC and were in the chosen investigations' starting point, 4294 of them were utilizing MIS, and 5910 were utilizing OSM. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were utilized to compute the value of the effect of MIS and OSM on WI in female's CC and by the dichotomous approaches and a fixed or random model. The MIS had significantly lower WI (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.15-0.35, p < 0.001) with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%) and postoperative aggregate complications (PACs) (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.64, p < 0.001) in females with CC and compared OSM. However, MIS compared with OSM in females with CC and had no significant difference in pelvic infection and abscess (PIA) (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31-1.16, p = 0.13). The MIS had significantly lower WI, and PACs, though, had no significant difference in PIA in females with CC and compared with OSM. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the low sample size of some of the nominated investigations for the meta-analysis.

Comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between different surgical approaches for overweight or obese cervical cancer patients

The purpose was to investigate the safety and advantages of different surgical approaches applied to overweight or obese cervical cancer patients by comparing their surgical and oncological outcomes. This is a retrospective cohort study. 382 patients with a body mass index of at least 24.0 kg/m2 and stage IB-IIA (The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, FIGO 2009) cervical cancer were enrolled, and then were divided into three groups: open radical hysterectomy (ORH) group, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) group, and robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) group according to the surgical approach. IBM SPSS version 25.0 was used to analyze data. There were 51 patients in ORH group, 225 patients in LRH group and 106 patients in RRH group. In the comparison of surgical outcomes, compared to LRH and ORH, RRH had the shortest operating time, the least estimated blood loss, the shortest postoperative hospital stay, and the shortest recovery time for bowel function (P < 0.05). In the comparison of postoperative complications, ORH has the highest rate of postoperative infection and wound complication compared to LRH and RRH (P < 0.05), and RRH has the highest proportion of urinary retention. After a median follow-up time of 61 months, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups in terms of 5-year overall survival (OS) rate and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate, (P = 0.262, P = 0.453). In patients with overweight or obese cervical cancer, the long-term outcomes of the three surgical approaches were comparable, with RRH showing significant advantages over ORH and LRH in terms of surgical outcomes.

Effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on postoperative wound infection in patients with cervical cancer: A meta-analysis

The objective of this research is to evaluate the risk of postoperative infection and other risks associated with robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). Recent studies on RRH versus LRH have not been conclusive for cervical carcinoma. Our group attempted to use meta-analyses to evaluate the effects of both RRH and LRH on postoperative outcomes in order to make sure that the best operative method was used to prevent wound infections. We looked up Cochrane Library and published databases for this research and found 594 findings. Articles were screened by title and abstract and then carefully examined for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction was performed independently by two researchers. Comparison studies were used to describe the incidence of wound complications after surgery. The publication bias was assessed using Egger regression correlation analysis. There were six trials eligible for inclusion, of which 491 RRH and 807 LRH. Depending on surgery for cervical carcinoma, it is true that there is a difference in the way that surgery affects the postoperative complications. Our analysis demonstrated that the use of robotic operation can decrease the amount of blood loss during operation as compared with routine laparoscopy (MD, -77.69; 95% CI, -132.08, -23.30; p = 0.005). However, there were no statistical differences in the incidence of postoperative wound infections (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.25, 1.19; p = 0.13) and intraoperative operative time (MD, 13.01; 95% CI, -41.38, 67.41; p = 0.64) among the two procedures. There was no statistically significant difference between these two groups of patients with severe postoperative complications. Unlike other research, the findings of this meta-analysis are not consistent with the findings of the present study, which suggest that robotic operations cannot lower the rate of postoperative wound infections. However, because of the limitations and the retrospective character of the trials covered, these findings should be interpreted with care and more extensive research is required.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy vs. Robotic assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

Following compelling evidence that open techniques may be related to better survival and disease free survival rates, many gynecologic oncologists in the US have turned away from performing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. While this may be warranted as a safety concern, there is little high-quality data on the head-to-head comparison of LRH and RRH and therefore little evidence to answer the question of where this decrease in patient survival is originating from. In our systematic review, we aimed to compare the complications and outcomes of LRH against those of RRH.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from database inception until February 1st, 2022.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

A total of 676 studies were identified and screened through a manual three-step process. Ultimately 33 studies were included in our final analysis. We included all studies that compared LRH and RRH and included at least one of our selected outcomes. We included retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control, and randomized clinical trials.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data was independently extracted manually by multiple observers and the analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. PRISMA guidelines were followed. We analyzed homogenous data using a fixed-effects model, while a random-effects model was used for heterogeneous outcomes. We found that following RRH, women had a decreased hospital stay (MD = 0.80[0.38,1.21],(P < 0.002). We found no differences in estimated blood loss (MD = 35.24[-0.40,70.89],(P = 0.05), blood transfusion rate ((OR = 1.32[0.86,2.02],(P = 0.20), rate of post-operative complications (OR = 0.84[0.60,1.17],(P = 0.30), the operative time (MD = 6.01[-4.64,16.66],(P = 0.27), number of resected lymph node (MD = -1.22[-3.28,0.84],(P = 0.25) intraoperative complications (OR = 0.78[0.51,1.19],(P = 0.25), five-year overall survival (OR = 1.37[0.51,3.69],(P = 0.53), lifetime disease free survival (OR = 0.89[0.59,1.32],(P = 0.55), intraoperative and postoperative mortality (within 30 days) (OR = 1.30[0.66,2.54],(P = 0.44), and recurrence (OR = 1.14[0.79,1.64],(P = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

RRH seems to result in the patient leaving the hospital sooner after surgery. We were unable to find any differences in our ten other outcomes related to complications or efficacy. These findings suggest that the decreased survival seen in minimally invasive RH in previous studies could be due to factors inherent to both LRH and RRH.

PROSPERO PROSPECTIVE REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022273727.

The incidence of perioperative lymphatic complications after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy between robotic and laparoscopic approach : a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although many studies have reported perioperative complications after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection using robotic and laparoscopic approaches, the risk of perioperative lymphatic complications has not been well identified. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the risks of perioperative lymphatic complications after robotic radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection (RRHND) with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection (LRHND) for early uterine cervical cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases for studies published up to July 2022 comparing perioperative lymphatic complications after RRHND and LRHND while treating early uterine cervical cancer. Related articles and bibliographies of relevant studies were also checked. Two reviewers independently performed the data extraction.

RESULTS

A total of 19 eligible clinical trials (15 retrospective studies and 4 prospective studies) comprising 3079 patients were included in this analysis. Only 107 patients (3.48%) had perioperative lymphatic complications, of which the most common was lymphedema ( n =57, 1.85%), followed by symptomatic lymphocele ( n =30, 0.97%), and lymphorrhea ( n =15, 0.49%). When all studies were pooled, the odds ratio for the risk of any lymphatic complication after RRHND compared with LRHND was 1.27 (95% CI: 0.86-1.89; P =0.230). In the subgroup analysis, study quality, country of research, and publication year were not associated with perioperative lymphatic complications.

CONCLUSIONS

A meta-analysis of the available current literature suggests that RRHND is not superior to LRHND in terms of perioperative lymphatic complications.

Effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer. A systematic literature search up to July 2022 was performed and 10 231 subjects with cervical cancer at the baseline of the studies; 4307 of them were using the minimally invasive surgery, and 5924 were using laparotomy. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effect of minimally invasive surgery and laparotomy on wound infection and postoperative and intraoperative complications in the management of cervical cancer using the dichotomous methods with a random or fixed-effect model. The minimally invasive surgery had significantly lower wound infection (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.13-0.30, P < .001), and postoperative complications (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.64, P < .001) in subjects with cervical cancer compared laparotomy. However, minimally invasive surgery compared with laparotomy in subjects with cervical cancer had no significant difference in intraoperative complications (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.36, P = 0.76). The minimally invasive surgery had significantly lower wound infection, and postoperative complications however, had no significant difference in intraoperative complications in subjects with cervical cancer compared with laparotomy. The analysis of outcomes should be with caution because of the low sample size of 22 out of 41 studies in the meta-analysis and a low number of studies in certain comparisons.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, excluding robotic assisted versus open radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer

Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as data was available to separate the two arms. We excluded studies that combined LRH and RRH without supplying data to differentiate. Of 1244 total studies, we used a manual three step screening process. Sixty studies ultimately met our criteria. We performed this review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using odds ratio (OR) and a 95% CI. Review Manager and Endnote software were utilized in the synthesis. We found that when excluding RRH, the was no significant difference regarding 5-year overall Survival (OR = 1.24 [0.94, 1.64], (P = 0.12), disease free survival (OR = 1.00 [0.80, 1.26], (P = 0.98), recurrence (OR = 1.01 [0.81, 1.25], (P = 0.95), or intraoperative complications (OR = 1.38 [0.94, 2.04], (P = 0.10). LRH was statistically better than ORH in terms of estimated blood loss (MD = - 325.55 [- 386.16, - 264.94] (P < 0.001), blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.28 [0.14, 0.55], (P = 0.002), postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.70 [0.55, 0.90], (P = 0.005), and length of hospital stay (MD = - 3.64[- 4.27, - 3.01], (P < 0.001). ORH was superior in terms of operating time (MD = 20.48 [8.62, 32.35], (P = 0.007) and number of resected lymph nodes (MD = - 2.80 [- 4.35, - 1.24], (P = 0.004). The previously seen increase recurrence and decrease in survival is not seen in LRH when robotic assisted techniques are included and all new high quality is considered. LRH is also associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower complication rate.Prospero Prospective Registration Number: CRD42022267138.

Surgical and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic and radical abdominal hysterectomy for IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare sugrical and survival outcomes between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH).

METHODS

All the patients with IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer who performed LRH or RAH in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center between 1/2016 and 12/2017 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between LRH and RAH groups except deep stromal invasion (35.2% vs 54.4%, p = 0.000), operating time (232.3 ± 61.9 min vs. 106.7 ± 36.2 min, p = 0.000), blood loss (169.5 ± 96.2 ml vs. 219.6 ± 149.3 ml, p = 0.000), and lymph node counts (21.1 ± 7.1 vs. 23.2 ± 8.7 min, p = 0.012). The LRH group displayed poorer disease-free survival (DFS) (5-year rate, 79.4% vs. 90.0%; p = 0.046) and overall survival (OS) (5-year rate, 74.7% vs. 90.0%; p = 0.026) compared to the RAH group. On multivariate analysis, LRH was an independent risk factor for DFS (hazard ratio, 0.377; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.227-0.625; p = 0.000) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.434; 95% CI, 0.254-0.740; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

LRH affected the survival of cervical cancer patients with tumor size >2 cm (p < 0.05). Adjuvant therapy could not improve the prognosis of laparoscopic patients (p < 0.05).

Pattern of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer after radical hysterectomy as primary treatment. Minimally invasive surgery vs. open approach. Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

After the LACC trial, the SUCCOR study, and other studies, we know that patients who have undergone minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer have worse outcomes, but today, we do not know if the surgical approach can be a reason to change the pattern of relapses on these patients. We evaluated the relapse pattern in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO, 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy with different surgical approaches.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Web of science. Inclusion criteria were prospective or retrospective comparative studies of different surgical approaches that described patterns or locations of relapse in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer. Heterogeneity was assessed by calculating I2.

RESULTS

The research resulted in 782 eligible citations from January 2010 to October 2020. After filtering, nine articles that met all inclusion criteria were analyzed, comprising data from 1663 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer, and the incidence of relapse was 10.6%. When we compared the pattern of relapse (local, distant, and both) of each group (open surgery and minimally invasive surgery), we did not see statistically significant differences, (OR 0.963; 95% CI, 0.602-1.541; p = 0.898), (OR 0.788; 95% CI, 0.467-1.330; p = 0.542), and (OR 0.683; 95% CI, 0.331-1.407; p = 0.630), respectively.

CONCLUSION

There are no differences in patterns of relapse across surgical approaches in patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy as primary treatment.

Vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: a retrospective pilot study

Background

Minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer is debated. We developed this new vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer, and we aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of this surgical procedure and observe the early oncologic outcomes.

Methods

From January 2019 to August 2020, patients with early cervical cancer who underwent vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy were studied retrospectively. The clinical characteristics, pathologic outcomes, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up details of the patients were recorded.

Results

Forty-eight patients underwent vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy were included, 14 (29.2%) with stage IB1, 13 (27.1%) with stage IB2, 7 (14.6%) with stage IB3, 10 (20.8%) with stage IIA1, and 4 (8.3%) stage with IA2. The mean age at diagnosis was 50.4 (range 28–72) years old. The mean operative time was 237.3 min (range 162–393), and the mean estimated blood loss was 246.5 ml (range 80–800). No intraoperative complications occurred, and there were no patients who were readmitted. Histological types were distributed as follows: squamous cell carcinoma 72.9%, adenocarcinoma 10.4%, and adenosquamous cell carcinoma 16.7%. There were 2 patients (4.2%) with positive nodes, 20 patients (41.7%) with positive lymphovascular space invasion, and 2 patients (4.2%) with positive parametria. Twenty-eight patients (58.3%) received adjuvant therapy after the operation. With a mean follow-up of 17.7 months (range 6–26), there were no recurrent cases, and 11 patients (22.9%) suffered lower limb lymphoedema.

Conclusions

The vaginal-assisted gasless laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy might be a feasible technique for early cervical cancer, with promising short-term oncological outcomes and safety. A prospective study with more patients and longer follow-up periods should be performed to further evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures with and without robotic assistance

OBJECTIVE

Following the publication of several high quality randomized controlled trials regarding the comparison of similar laparoscopic gynecologic procedures being performed with or without robotic assistance, we aimed to perform a systematic review to identify any differences in patient safety and expected incidence of complications in these procedures.

DATA SOURCES

Articles on ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were retrieved and screened for eligibility up to April 1st 2021.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

In addition to meeting our screening algorithm, we included studies that met all the following: randomized control trials (RCT), enrolling patients for indicated laparoscopic gynecologic procedures, and comparing Robotic Surgery (RS) with Laparoscopic Surgery (LS) in terms of safety or complications.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data was pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Ultimately, six studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data revealed that RS and LS have similar risk for intraoperative complications (RR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.23, 3.36], P = 0.84), postoperative complications (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [0.57, 2.01], P = 0.83), significant intraoperative hemorrhage (RR = 1.40; 95% CI [0.59, 3.34], P = 0.44), postoperative hemorrhage (RR = 0.43; 95% CI [0.15, 1.22], P = 0.11), vaginal cuff dehiscence (RR = 1.13; 95% CI [0.24, 5.41], P = 0.88), postoperative wound infection, urinary tract infection, and urinary bladder or ureteral injury. RS had "surgeon declared" lower estimated blood loss (MD = 85.27; 95% CI [46.45, 124.09], P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = 1.20; 95% CI [0.38, 2.01], P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

There was a statistically significant decrease in hospital stay and "surgeon declared" blood loss seen in the RS group. There was no statistically significant increase in risk of developing other postoperative complications between the LS and R groups.

Comparison of the complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgical treatments for early-stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis comprehensively compared intraoperative and postoperative complications between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and laparotomy in the management of cervical cancer. Even though the advantages of laparotomy over MIS in disease-free survival and overall survival for management of gynecological diseases have been cited in the literature, there is a lack of substantial evidence of the advantage of one surgical modality over another, and it is uncertain whether MIS is justifiable in terms of safety and efficacy.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, the studies were abstracted that the outcomes of complications to compare MIS (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics classification stage IA1-IIB) cervical cancer. The primary outcomes were intraoperative overall complications, as well as postoperative aggregate complications. Secondary outcomes included the individual complications. Two investigators independently performed the screening and data extraction. All articles that met the eligibility criteria were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis finally included 39 non-randomized studies and 1 randomized controlled trial (8 studies were conducted on robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs open radical hysterectomy (ORH), 27 studies were conducted on laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) vs ORH, and 5 studies were conducted on all three approaches). Pooled analyses showed that MIS was associated with higher risk of intraoperative overall complications (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.07-1.86, P<0.05) in comparison with ORH. However, compared to ORH, MIS was associated with significantly lower risk of postoperative aggregate complications (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.34-0.48, P = 0.0143). In terms of individual complications, MIS appeared to have a positive effect in decreasing the complications of transfusion, wound infection, pelvic infection and abscess, lymphedema, intestinal obstruction, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and urinary tract infection. Furthermore, MIS had a negative effect in increasing the complications of cystotomy, bowel injury, subcutaneous emphysema, and fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that MIS is superior to laparotomy, with fewer postoperative overall complications (wound infection, pelvic infection and abscess, lymphedema, intestinal obstruction, pulmonary embolism, and urinary tract infection). However, MIS is associated with a higher risk of intraoperative aggregate complications (cystotomy, bowel injury, and subcutaneous emphysema) and postoperative fistula complications.

Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in women with early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This review aimed to evaluate the short term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for early-stage cervical cancer. A search of PubMed, Medline and Scopus databased from 2000 to 2018 was conducted. Thirty studies were retrieved including 22 retrospective cohort studies and 8 prospective cohort studies. LRH was comparable with ARH in 5-year overall survival (RR = 1.0. 95%CI 0.98-1.03; p = 0.33) and 5-year disease-free survival (RR = 1.02 95%CI 0.97-1.06; p = 0.98). The majority of included studies reported the negative cancer factors which drive adjuvant therapy were similar between two approaches. LRH was associated with lower blood loss and blood transfusion, less postoperative complication, shorter hospital stays and similar intraoperative complication rate compared to ARH. Our data suggested LRH for early-stage cervical cancer was as safe and effective in terms of long-term outcomes, but with lower surgical morbidities.

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly common in cancer surgery. A recent randomized clinical trial has brought into question the safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

Objective

To quantify the risk of recurrence and death associated with minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer reported in observational studies optimized to control for confounding.

Data Sources

Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (inception to March 26, 2020) performed in an academic medical setting.

Study Selection

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, observational studies were abstracted that used survival analyses to compare outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) and open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA1-IIA) cervical cancer. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and included studies with scores of at least 7 points that controlled for confounding by tumor size or stage.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist was used to abstract data independently by multiple observers. Random-effects models were used to pool associations and to analyze the association between surgical approach and oncologic outcomes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Risk of recurrence or death and risk of all-cause mortality.

Results

Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 15 were included in the meta-analysis. Of 9499 patients who underwent radical hysterectomy, 49% (n = 4684) received minimally invasive surgery; of these, 57% (n = 2675) received robot-assisted laparoscopy. There were 530 recurrences and 451 deaths reported. The pooled hazard of recurrence or death was 71% higher among patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy compared with those who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.15; P < .001), and the hazard of death was 56% higher (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.16-2.11; P = .004). Heterogeneity of associations was low to moderate. No association was found between the prevalence of robot-assisted surgery and the magnitude of association between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and hazard of recurrence or death (2.0% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -3.4% to 7.7%]) or all-cause mortality (3.7% increase in the HR for each 10-percentage point increase in prevalence of robot-assisted surgery [95% CI, -4.5% to 12.6%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies found that among patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with an elevated risk of recurrence and death compared with open surgery.

Infectious complications of laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the infectious complications of hysterectomy, comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, and EMBASE through July 2018 for studies evaluating robotic-assisted hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy, and infectious complications. We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled OR estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I² estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. Pooled ORs were calculated separately based on the reason for hysterectomy (eg, benign uterine diseases, endometrial cancer, and cervical cancer).

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included in the final review for the meta-analysis with 176 016 patients undergoing hysterectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infectious complication events between robotic-assisted hysterectomy and laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.74 to 1.28). When we performed a stratified analysis, similar results were found with no statistically significant difference in infectious complications comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy among patients with benign uterine disease (pooled OR 1.10; 95 % CI 0.70 to 1.73), endometrial cancer (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.55 to 1.73), or cervical cancer (pooled OR 1.09; 95 % CI 0.60 to 1.97).

CONCLUSION

In our meta-analysis the rate of infectious complications associated with robotic-assisted hysterectomy was no different than that associated with conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy.

Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for Stage IB1 Cervical Cancer Patients: A Multi-institution Study and a Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the surgical and oncological outcome of 3 different surgical approaches (laparotomy, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery) in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB1.

METHODS

All patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of early-stage cervical cancer, FIGO stage IB1, who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, or robotic radical hysterectomy with or without pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy were included in the study. A review of the literature was conducted.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-one patients, between January 2001 and December 2016, were included in this study: 101 patients were submitted to ARH, 152 to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, and 88 to robotic radical hysterectomy. In 97% and 11.5% of cases, bilateral pelvic and aortic lymph node dissections were performed, respectively. The 3 groups were similar in regard to clinical characteristics. Compared with ARH, the minimally invasive surgery group was safer in terms of estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, and hospital stay. Above all, robotic surgery was equivalent to laparoscopy in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications, hospital stay, conversions, and reintervention. On the other hand, robotic surgery had better outcomes compared with laparoscopy in terms of transfusion rates and was equivalent to abdominal surgery and laparoscopy in regard to oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed that minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopy or robotics) was as adequate and effective as abdominal surgery in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes in the surgical treatment of EEC FIGO stage IB1.

Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: A separate meta-analysis of high-quality studies

BACKGROUND

To perform a meta-analysis of high-quality studies comparing robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH), and open radical hysterectomy (ORH) for the treatment of cervical cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed to identify studies that compared RRH with LRH or ORH. The selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies was based on a validated tool (methodologic index for nonrandomized studies) since no randomized controlled trials have been published. Outcomes of interest included conversion rate, operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, mortality, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLNs), and long-term oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve studies assessing RRH vs LRH or ORH were included for this meta-analysis. In comparison with LRH, there was no difference in operation time, EBL, conversion rate, intraoperative or postoperative complications, LOS, and tumor recurrence (P > .05). Compared with ORH, patients underwent RRH had less EBL (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -322.59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -502.75 to -142.43, P < .01), a lower transfusion rate (odds ratio [OR] = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.34, P < .01), and shorter LOS (WMD = -2.71 days; 95% CI: -3.74 to -1.68, P < .01). There was no significant difference between RRH and LRH with respect to the operation time, intraoperative or postoperative complications, RLN, and tumor recurrence (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that RRH is safe and effective compared to its laparoscopic and open counterpart and provides favorable outcomes in postoperative recovery.

Impact of hospital care volume on clinical outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In cervical cancer, the impact of hospital volume of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) has not been investigated systematically as in ovarian cancer.The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of hospital care volume of LRH on treatment outcomes of patients with cervical cancer.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with the terms "cervical cancer," "radical hysterectomy," and "laparoscopy." The selection criteria included studies presenting operative outcomes and/or perioperative complications of LRH from high-volume hospitals (HVHs) (≥15 cases/year) and low-volume hospitals (LVHs) (<15 cases/year). Fifty-nine studies including 4367 cases were selected. Linear regression analysis weighted by the average annual case number in each study was performed to evaluate differences between the groups.

RESULTS

In HVH, a higher number of lymph nodes (24.5 vs 21.1; P = .037) were retrieved by LRH in older women (48.4 vs 44.5 years; P = .010) with tendencies of shorter operation time (224.4 vs 256.4 minutes; P = .096) and less blood loss (253.1 vs 322.2 mL; P = .080). Compared with LVH, HVH had fewer patients with stage IA disease (13.8 vs 24.4%; P = .003) and more patients with stage IIA disease (15.3 vs 7.1%; P = .052) with comparable 5-year overall survival (93.1 vs 88.6%; P = .112).

CONCLUSION

HVH is a prognostic factor for operative outcome and perioperative complications in patients with cervical cancer undergoing LRH. The exact effect of hospital volume on survival outcome needs to be evaluated.

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

BACKGROUND

We have assessed the impact of introducing robotics for a stage 1b cervical cancer service on laparotomy rates, complications, and costs.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively from 90 consecutive patients who had a radical hysterectomy between 1 April 2010 and 31 December 2017.

RESULTS

There were 37 women before the first robotic procedure and 53 after. The laparotomy rate reduced from 75% (9/12) in 2010 to 0% (0/18) in 2017. The length of stay reduced from 6 days (range 3-39) to 3 days (range 1-15) (P < 0.0001). The complication rate before robotics was 68% (25/37) compared with 45% (24/53) afterwards (P = 0.0493). The blood transfusion rate reduced from 43% (16/37) to 11% (6/53) (P = 0.0007). There were no differences between the total costs before and after the introduction of robotics or between each route.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, introducing robotics for cervical carcinoma reduced hospital stay and complications. No cost differences were demonstrated.

Robotic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Population-Based Study of Adoption and Immediate Postoperative Outcomes in the United States

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the use of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in the United States, with secondary outcomes of perioperative complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), immediate postoperative mortality, cost and a subanalysis compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).

DESIGN

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

SETTING

Data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), a government-funded database of hospitalization in the United States.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

All women with cervical cancer undergoing RH between 2008 and 2015 in the United States and included in the NIS database.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Trends in surgical modality, baseline characteristics, LOS, perioperative outcomes, mortality, and hospital charges were compared between RRH and ARH. Regression models were adjusted for baseline characteristics. Among 41,317 women with cervical cancer, 3563 underwent RH, including 21.0% with a robotic procedure, 6.5% with a laparoscopic procedure, and 72.5% with open surgery. The annual rates of ARH declined significantly over the study period, whereas those of RRH increased. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the RRH and ARH groups. Compared with the ARH group, women undergoing RRH had a lower rate of cumulative postoperative complications (18.16% vs 21.21%; odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.0; p = .05), including lower rates of wound infection (0.27% vs 1.82%; OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.6; p < .01), sepsis (0.27% vs 1.20%; OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.9; p = .03), fever (1.87% vs 4.06%; OR, 0.44, 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; p < .01), and ileus (2.8% vs 9.13%; OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.4; p < .01). The LOS was significantly shorter in the RRH group (median, 2 days vs 4 days; p < .01). The total median hospitalization charge was $47,218 for the RRH group, compared with $38,877 for the ARH group (p < .01).

CONCLUSION

RRH is being increasingly performed in the United States and is associated with shorter LOS and less postoperative morbidity; however, long-term oncologic outcomes require additional attention.

Radical Hysterectomy: Efficacy and Safety in the Dawn of Minimally Invasive Techniques

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effect that the introduction of minimally invasive procedures has had on surgical and oncologic outcomes when compared with conventional open radical hysterectomy (ORH) in a national reference cancer after 17 years of experience in radical hysterectomy.

DESIGN

A prospective controlled study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

A university teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent radical hysterectomy as primary treatment for cervical cancer in our institution between May 1999 and June 2016, with a total of 188 patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent ORH or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (i.e., laparoscopic or robotically assisted radical hysterectomy).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-six patients underwent ORH, 90 laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, and 22 robotically assisted radical hysterectomy. Blood loss and hospital stay were inferior in the MIS group (p <.0001). The laparotomic group presented shorter operation times (p = .0001). With a median follow-up of 112.4 months, a total of 156 patients (83%) were alive and free of disease at the time of the data analysis. Overall survival was higher in the MIS group when compared with the ORH group (91 vs 78.9, p = .026). There were no differences regarding recurrence rates between the surgical approaches.

CONCLUSION

With 1 of the largest follow-up periods in the literature, this study provides added evidence that MIS could become the preferable surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer since it appears to reduce morbidity without affecting oncologic results.

Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) with traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in a large retrospective cohort of a total of 933 patients.

Methods

We have enrolled 100 patients into the RRH and 833 patients into the TLRH group. The surgical outcomes include operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate, pelvic lymph node yield, hospitalization days, duration of bowel function recovery, catheter removal before and after 3 weeks, conversion to laparotomy, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Follow-up results were also analyzed for all patients.

Results

Both groups have similar patient and tumor characteristics but patients with a larger lesion size were preferably enrolled in the TLRH treatment group. The treatment with RRH was generally superior to TLRH with respect to operating time, blood loss, length of hospitalization, duration of bowel function recovery, and postoperative complications. On follow-up of patients, there were no relapses reported in the RRH group compared with 4% of relapse cases and 2.9% of deaths because of metastasis in the TLRH group. No conversion of laparotomy occurred in the RRH group. No significant difference was found with respect to intraoperative complications and blood transfusion between both groups.

Conclusions

The results from this study suggest that RRH is superior to TLRH with regard to surgical outcome and may pose a safe and feasible alternative to TLRH. The operating time and lymph node yield is acceptable. Our study is one of the largest single-center studies of surgical outcomes comparing RRH with TLRH during cervical cancer treatment and will significantly contribute to the safety of alternative treatment options for patients. Furthermore, the difference detected between TLRH and RRH group is further strengthened by the great expertise of the surgeon performing laparoscopic surgeries.

Robotic versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: A case matched control study

BACKGROUND

This study aims at evaluating the feasibility, surgical outcome and oncological results observed after robotic radical hysterectomy (RH) compared to laparoscopy for patients with early stage cervical cancer (ECC) patients.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and October 2016, 210 patients underwent RH for treatment of ECC: 70 underwent robotic approach (Cases), and 140 underwent laparoscopic approach (Controls).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the two approaches with regard to clinical patient characteristics and in terms of extent of RH and rate of pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy. Operative time was significantly longer in the robotic versus laparoscopic group (median = 243 min, range 90-612 versus median = 210 min, range 80-660; p value = 0.008). Conversion to laparotomy was necessary in 4 patients (1.9%) in the whole series. No difference was found in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications between the two groups. Overall, during the observation period, 34 (16.2%) patients experienced any grade postoperative complications, and 21 (10.0%) had >G2 complications. The 3-yr DFS was 88.0% versus 84.0% in robotic and laparoscopic group, respectively (p value = 0.866). Central and/or lateral pelvic disease represented the most common site of relapse. The 3-yr OS was 90.8% in patients underwent robotic RH versus 94.0% in patients underwent laparoscopic RH (p value = 0.924).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows the equivalence of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to radical surgery of ECC patients, in terms of perioperative and postoperative outcomes with equivalent survival figures, and thus the choice of approach can be tailored to the choice of patient and surgeon.

Minimally Invasive Surgery to Treat Gynecological Cancer: Conventional Laparoscopy and/or Robot-Assisted Surgery

Robotic-assisted surgery is a technological advancement derived from conventional laparoscopy, which facilitates the application of minimally invasive techniques for complex operations in the field of gynecological oncology. However, its introduction in gynecological cancer has been scarce in most hospitals worldwide. Most publications on robotic surgery are still retrospective or descriptive in nature. Some studies compare robotic-assisted laparoscopy with open procedures, which is a questionable analysis, because the advantages of minimally invasive surgery have been already well established. Robotic surgery should be directly compared with conventional laparoscopy to determine whether its additional direct and indirect costs are in accordance with some improvements within patient clinical outcomes. On the other hand, the role of robotic-assisted surgery in allowing more patients to receive the benefits of the minimally invasive approach should also be considered. The objective of this article was, therefore, to review the literature regarding the role of conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopy to treat women with gynecologic cancer.

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.

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.

How to prepare the patient for robotic surgery: before and during the operation

Robotic surgery in the treatment of gynecologic diseases continues to evolve and has become accepted over the last decade. The advantages of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery over conventional laparoscopy are three-dimensional camera vision, superior precision and dexterity with EndoWristed instruments, elimination of operator tremor, and decreased surgeon fatigue. The drawbacks of the technology are bulkiness and lack of tactile feedback. As with other surgical platforms, the limitations of robotic surgery must be understood. Patient selection and the types of surgical procedures that can be performed through the robotic surgical platform are critical to the success of robotic surgery. First, patient selection and the indication for gynecologic disease should be considered. Discussion with the patient regarding the benefits and potential risks of robotic surgery and of complications and alternative treatments is mandatory, followed by patient's signature indicating informed consent. Appropriate preoperative evaluation-including laboratory and imaging tests-and bowel cleansing should be considered depending upon the type of robotic-assisted procedure. Unlike other surgical procedures, robotic surgery is equipment-intensive and requires an appropriate surgical suite to accommodate the patient side cart, the vision system, and the surgeon's console. Surgical personnel must be properly trained with the robotics technology. Several factors must be considered to perform a successful robotic-assisted surgery: the indication and type of surgical procedure, the surgical platform, patient position and the degree of Trendelenburg, proper port placement configuration, and appropriate instrumentation. These factors that must be considered so that patients can be appropriately prepared before and during the operation are described.

Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the value of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer by comparing intraoperative and postoperative outcomes with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, through February 2, 2016 with keywords of "laparoscopic OR laparoscopy" AND "radical hysterectomy OR early cervical cancer OR stage IB, stage IB1, stage IB2, stage IIA, stage IIA1, stage IIA2, stage IIA cervical cancer" to identify all relevant studies that compared LRH with ARH in treating early cervical cancer. Two reviewers evaluated the quality of literature independently. Standardized tables were used to extract data (study or participant details and results) from the texts, tables, figures, or any other attachments of eligible publications. Weighted mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs) were pooled with the random effects model. Then we conducted meta-analysis using the RevMan5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 615 studies were initially identified. After screening, 23 studies, including 4205 patients were recruited. LRH was associated with lower estimated blood loss (mL) (MD = -178.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -214.89 to -141.94, P < .00001), longer operation time (minutes) (MD = 43.68, 95% CI = 29.42-57.95, P < .00001), fewer retrieved lymph nodes (MD = -3.44, 95% CI = -5.96 to -0.92, P = .007), shorter hospital stay (day) (MD = -3.17, 95% CI = -4.06 to -2.29, P < .00001), quicker return to normal bowel activity (day) (MD = -0.7, 95% CI = -0.96 to -0.45, P < .00001), and shorter duration of bladder catheterization (day) (MD = -1.69, 95% CI = -2.83 to -0.55, P < .004) than ARH. LRH also demonstrated lower odds of transfusion (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.73, P = .0007), and ileus (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.12-0.91, P = .03) than ARH.

CONCLUSION

LRH outweighs ARH in treating early stage cervical cancer in most essential aspects, which should arouse sufficient attention.

Introduction of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: impact on complications, costs and oncologic outcome

INTRODUCTION

The objective was to assess the impact of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) on surgical and oncologic outcome and costs compared with open radical hysterectomy (ORH) at a tertiary referral center in Sweden.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective analysis all patients treated with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for early stage uterine cervical cancer during 2006-2015 were included (n = 304). The patients were divided into two groups, ORH (n = 155) and RRH (n = 149). Patient characteristics, FIGO stage, histology, adjuvant therapy, operation time, length of stay (LOS), lymph node yield, recurrence rate and survival were retrieved from medical records. Complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. In addition, costs related to the surgical treatments were calculated.

RESULTS

Blood loss, LOS and intraoperative complications were significantly lower as well as lymph node yield after RRH. No differences in postoperative complications or costs were observed between the two groups. Recurrence of disease was detected in 13.4 and 10.3% after RRH and ORH, respectively. Regression analysis demonstrated that histology, tumor size, positive lymph nodes and type of operation (RRH) were significantly associated with recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of RRH was accompanied by similar postoperative complication rates and costs but lower LOS compared with ORH. An initial learning curve may account for the higher recurrence rate observed after RRH. These data reinforce the need for structured training and monitoring of outcomes when novel treatment modalities are introduced.

Superiority of robotic surgery for cervical cancer in comparison with traditional approaches: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To review the safety and effectiveness of da Vinci robotic surgery for cervical cancer in comparison with the traditional open surgery and conventional laparoscopic operation.

METHODS

Based on Medline, the Cochrane library, Embase, and the Journal of Robotic Surgery prior to December 30st, 2015, we searched for controlled trials and observational studies. A systematic review with meta-analyses was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy between the da Vinci robotic surgery, open surgery, and laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer. Data were pooled using the random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with the open surgery, the robotic surgery for cervical cancer would be advantageous in terms of the length of hospital stay, incidence of complications, volume of blood loss and blood transfusion. The operative time of robotic surgery was longer than that of the open surgery, but the prediction intervals indicated that they could be shorter in future studies. Meanwhile, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the robotic surgery could offer more benefits in terms of the length of hospital stay, while no difference was found in terms of the incidence of complications and the volume of blood loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to open surgery, the robotic surgery would be advantageous for cervical cancer patients in terms of the length of hospital stay, the incidence of complications, blood loss and blood transfusion. Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the robotic surgery would result in longer OT, more BL and shorter LOS. The study quality was poor.

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.

Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the surgical safety and clinical effectiveness of RH versus LH and laparotomy for cervical cancer.

METHODS

We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and the Cochrane library through May 2015, and checked references of relevant studies. We selected the comparative studies reported the surgical safety (overall; peri-operative; and post-operative complications; death within 30 days; and specific morbidities), and clinical effectiveness (survival; recurrence; length of stay [LOS]; estimated blood loss [EBL]; operative time [OT]) and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies comparing RH with OH and 11 comparing RH with LH were identified. No significant differences were found in survival outcomes. The LOS was shorter and transfusion rate was lower with RH compared to OH or LH. EBL was significantly reduced with RH compared to OH. Compared to OH, overall complications, urinary infection, wound infection, and fever were significantly less frequent with RH. The overall, peri-operative, and post-operative complications were similar in other comparisons. Several patient-reported outcomes were improved with RH, though each outcome was reported in only one study.

CONCLUSIONS

RH appears to have a positive effect in reducing overall complications, individual adverse events including wound infection, fever, urinary tract infection, transfusion, LOS, EBL, and time to diet than OH for cervical cancer patients. Compared to LH, the current evidence is not enough to clearly determine its clinical safety and effectiveness. Further rigorous prospective studies with long-term follow-up that overcome the many limitations of the current evidence are needed.

Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancers: a systematic review

Total and radical hysterectomies are the most common treatment strategies for early-stage endometrial and cervical cancers, respectively. Surgical modalities include open surgery, laparoscopy, and more recently, minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery. We searched several electronic databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with a comparison group, published between 2009 and 2014. Our outcomes of interest included both perioperative and morbidity outcomes. We included 35 observational studies in this review. We did not find any randomized controlled trials. The quality of evidence for all reported outcomes was very low. For women with endometrial cancer, we found that there was a reduction in estimated blood loss between the robot-assisted surgery compared to both laparoscopy and open surgery. There was a reduction in length of hospital stay between robot-assisted surgery and open surgery but not laparoscopy. There was no difference in total lymph node removal between the three modalities. There was no difference in the rate of overall complications between the robot-assisted technique and laparoscopy. For women with cervical cancer, there were no differences in estimated blood loss or removal of lymph nodes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic procedure. Compared to laparotomy, robot-assisted hysterectomy for cervical cancer showed an overall reduction in estimated blood loss. Although robot-assisted hysterectomy is clinically effective for the treatment of both endometrial and cervical cancers, methodologically rigorous studies are lacking to draw definitive conclusions.

Robotic Surgery in Gynecology

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can be considered as the greatest surgical innovation over the past 30 years. It revolutionized surgical practice with well-proven advantages over traditional open surgery: reduced surgical trauma and incision-related complications, such as surgical-site infections, postoperative pain and hernia, reduced hospital stay, and improved cosmetic outcome. Nonetheless, proficiency in MIS can be technically challenging as conventional laparoscopy is associated with several limitations as the two-dimensional (2D) monitor reduction in-depth perception, camera instability, limited range of motion, and steep learning curves. The surgeon has a low force feedback, which allows simple gestures, respect for tissues, and more effective treatment of complications. Since the 1980s, several computer sciences and robotics projects have been set up to overcome the difficulties encountered with conventional laparoscopy, to augment the surgeon’s skills, achieve accuracy and high precision during complex surgery, and facilitate widespread of MIS. Surgical instruments are guided by haptic interfaces that replicate and filter hand movements. Robotically assisted technology offers advantages that include improved three-dimensional stereoscopic vision, wristed instruments that improve dexterity, and tremor canceling software that improves surgical precision.

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.

Learning curve analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for gynecologic oncologists without open counterpart experience

Objective

To evaluate the learning curve of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for gynecologic oncologists who underwent residency- and fellowship-training on laparoscopic surgery without previous experience in performing abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 84 patients with FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage IB cervical cancer who underwent LRH (Piver type III) between April 2006 and March 2014. The patients were divided into two groups (surgeon A group, 42 patients; surgeon B group, 42 patients) according to the surgeon with or without ARH experience. Clinico-pathologic data were analyzed between the 2 groups. Operating times were analyzed using the cumulative sum technique.

Results

The operating time in surgeon A started at 5 to 10 standard deviations of mean operating time and afterward steeply decreased with operative experience (Pearson correlation coefficient=-0.508, P=0.001). Surgeon B, however, showed a gentle slope of learning curve within 2 standard deviations of mean operating time (Pearson correlation coefficient=-0.225, P=0.152). Approximately 18 cases for both surgeons were required to achieve surgical proficiency for LRH. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor size (>4 cm) was significantly associated with increased operating time (P=0.027; odds ratio, 4.667; 95% confidence interval, 1.187 to 18.352).

Conclusion

After completing the residency- and fellowship-training course on gynecologic laparoscopy, gynecologic oncologists, even without ARH experience, might reach an acceptable level of surgical proficiency in LRH after approximately 20 cases and showed a gentle slope of learning curve, taking less effort to initially perform LRH.

Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) to laparoscopic and open approaches in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE (using Ovid interface) and SCOPUS databases was conducted from database inception through February 15, 2014. We included studies comparing surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy (robotic vs. laparoscopic or abdominal, or both) in women with stages IA1-IIA cervical cancer. Intraoperative outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, number of pelvic lymph nodes harvested and intraoperative complications. Postoperative outcomes were hospital stay and surgical morbidity. The random effects model was used to pool weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

Twenty six nonrandomized studies were included (10 RRH vs abdominal radical hysterectomy [ARH], 9 RRH vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy [LRH] and 7 compared all 3 approaches) enrolling 4013 women (1013 RRH, 710 LRH and 2290 ARH). RRH was associated with less EBL (WMD=384.3, 95% CI=233.7, 534.8) and shorter hospital stay (WMD=3.55, 95% CI=2.10, 5.00) than ARH. RRH was also associated with lower odds of febrile morbidity (OR=0.43, 95% CI=0.20-0.89), blood transfusion (OR=0.12, 95% CI 0.06, 0.25) and wound-related complications (OR=0.31, 95% CI=0.13, 0.73) vs. ARH. RRH was comparable to LRH in all intra- and postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that RRH may be superior to ARH with lower EBL, shorter hospital stay, less febrile morbidity and wound-related complications. RRH and LRH appear equivalent in intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes and thus the choice of approach can be tailored to the choice of patient and surgeon.

Comparison of robotic surgery and laparoscopy to perform total hysterectomy with pelvic adhesions or large uterus

BACKGROUND:

Currently, benefits of robotic surgery in patients with benign gynecological conditions remain unclear. In this study, we compared the surgical outcome of robotic and laparoscopic total hysterectomies and evaluated the feasibility of robotic surgery in cases with pelvic adhesions or large uterus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A total of 216 patients receiving total hysterectomy via robotic or laparoscopic approach were included in this study. Of all 216 patients, 88 underwent robotic total hysterectomy and 128 underwent laparoscopic total hysterectomy. All cases were grouped by surgical type, adhesion score, and uterine weight to evaluate the interaction or individual effect to the surgical outcomes. The perioperative parameters, including operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain score, time to full diet resumption, length of hospital stay, conversion rate, and surgery-related complications were compared between the groups.

RESULTS:

Operation time and blood loss were affected by both surgical type and adhesion score. For cases with severe adhesions (adhesion score greater than 4), robotic surgery was associated with a shortened operation time (113.9 ± 38.4 min versus 164.3 ± 81.4 min, P = 0.007) and reduced blood loss (187.5 ± 148.7 mL versus 385.7 ± 482.6, P=0.044) compared with laparoscopy. Moreover, robotic group showed a lower postoperative pain score than laparoscopic group, as the effect was found to be independent of adhesion score or uterine weight. The grade-II complication rate was also found to be lower in the robotic group.

CONCLUSIONS:

Comparing to laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery is a feasible and potential alternative for performing total hysterectomy with severe adhesions.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer Patients: A Matched-Case Comparative Study

Objective

This study aimed to compare initial surgical outcomes and complication rates of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).

Methods

Patients diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-IIA) who underwent RRH (n = 23) at Samsung Medical Center from January 2008 to May 2013 were compared with matched patients who underwent LRH (n = 69) during the same period. The 2 surgical groups were matched 3:1 for variables of age, body mass index, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, histological subtype, tumor size, and node positivity. All patient information and surgical and postoperative follow-up data were retrospectively collected.

Results

Operating time was significantly longer (317 vs 236 minutes; P < 0.001) in the RRH group compared with the LRH group but mean estimated blood loss was significantly reduced in the RRH group (200 vs 350 mL; P = 0.036). Intraoperative and postoperative complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups (4.3% for RRH vs 1.45% for LRH; P = 0.439). Recurrences were 2 (8.7%) in the RRH and 7 (10.1%) in the LRH group. The overall 3-year recurrence-free survival was 91.3% in RRH group and 89.9% in the LRH group (P = 0.778).

Conclusions

Although operating time was longer in the RRH cases because of lesser experience on robotic platform, we showed that surgical outcomes and complication rate of RRH were comparable to those of LRH. In addition, surgical skills for LRH easily and safely translated to RRH in case of experienced laparoscopic surgeon.

Laparoscopic versus robotic radical hysterectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: a case control study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcome of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From August 1st 2010 to July 1st 2012 a prospective data collection of women undergoing RRH for cervical cancer stage FIGO IB2 to IIB, after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, was conducted at National Cancer Institute "Regina Elena" of Rome. All patients deemed operable underwent class C1 RRH with pelvic lymphadenectomy within 4 weeks from the last chemotherapy cycle.

RESULTS

A total of 25 RRH were analyzed, and compared with 25 historic LRH cases. The groups did not differ significantly in body mass index, stage, histology, number of pelvic lymph nodes removed. The median operative time was the same in the two groups with 190 min respectively. The median estimated blood loss (EBL) was statistically significant in favor of RRH group. Median length of stay was shorter, for the RRH group (4 versus 6 days, P = 0.28). There was no significant difference in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications between groups but in the RRH group we observed a greater number of total complications compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that RRH is safe and feasible in LACC after NACT compare to LRH. However, a comparison of oncologic outcomes and cost-benefit analysis is still needed and it has to be carefully evaluated in the future.