Comparison of Total Laparoscopic and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Patients With Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

Surgical procedures and techniques in robot-assisted uterine artery-preserving radical trachelectomy

The aim of the study was to study robotic cervical radical trachelectomy, aimed at standardizing and optimizing surgical procedures, thereby facilitating the learning process. All surgical procedures were based on the anatomy of the embryonic compartments, which not only help prevent tumor spillage due to disruption of the embryonic compartments, but also maximize the avoidance of inadequate resection margins. Using robotics to perform radical trachelectomy, combined with the concept of membrane anatomy, not only enables a bloodless surgical process, but also streamlines and simplifies the procedure, making it more efficient and precise. Utilizing robotics for radical hysterectomy can lead to a more meticulous and refined outcome. Precise surgical techniques contribute to standardizing and optimizing surgical procedures, thereby facilitating the learning process.

The impaction laparoscopic versus laparotomy for lymphovascular space invasion of early cervical cancer: A multicenter retrospective study

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to compare the lymphovascular space invasion between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

Materials and Methods:

One retrospective study was conducted with 391 patients treated with 242 patients underwent ARH and 149 patients underwent LRH between May 2010 and August 2019. We collected clinicopathological and perioperative outcome from medical records. We adopt Student's t-test and Chi-square test was used to compare continuous and categorical variables between LRH and ARH.

Results:

Our research found that there was no difference in tumor size, histology, pathology grades, positive lymph nodes, and postoperative complications between LRH and ARH (P > 0.05). The estimated blooding loss (EBL) and length of postoperative hospital stay were less for LRH than ARH (248.12 ml vs. 412.56 ml, P < 0.05, and 10.48 days vs. 15.16 days, P < 0.05). The mean operative time was longer for LRH than ARH (227.51 min vs. 215.62 min, P < 0.05). Significant difference was found in intraoperative complications (P < 0.05). However, LVSI was higher for LRH than ARH (36.8% vs. 19.8%, P < 0.05). We discovered that the LVSI was related with International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology stage and tumor size.

Conclusion:

Compared to ARH, the LRH would be advantageous for early cervical cancer in terms of EBL, length of postoperative hospital stay, and intraoperative complications. The ARH was superior to LRH in operative time. In addition to, LRH was more likely to lead to LVSI. Furthermore, when tumor size or stage was increasing, LRH was easily to generate LVSI. But, we cannot confirm recurrence rate is related to LVSI.

The effects of uterine manipulators in minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has achieved great success in the surgical treatment of many kinds of cancer. This study aimed to systematically review the available evidence evaluating the effects of the use of uterine manipulators in minimally hysterectomies for endometrial cancer patients.

METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to Sep. 12, 2019 to identify relevant prospective or retrospective studies, using the intersection of "endometrial neoplasms", "endometrial carcinoma", "endometrial cancer"; "uterine manipulator", and "intrauterine manipulator". The initial search identified 251 items in total. The main outcomes of interest were the presence of LVSI (lymphovascular space invasion), the incidence of positive peritoneal cytology, and the presence of recurrence during follow-up.

RESULTS

After screening for eligibility, 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis finally. The timing of uterine manipulators insertion during MIS for endometrial cancer was not associated with an increased risk of positive peritoneal cytology (RR: 1.21, 95% CI, 0.68 to 2.16). Moreover, there was no significant difference for the rate of positive peritoneal cytology (RR: 1.53, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.77), LVSI (RR: 1.18, 95% CI, 0.66 to 2.11) or the rate of recurrence (RR: 1.25, 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.74) regarding the use of uterine manipulators for laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

We found that the use of uterine manipulators is not associated with an increased incidence of positive peritoneal cytology, LVSI, or recurrence among patients with endometrial cancer.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42020147111.

Total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the feasibility of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) in the treatment of benign gynecologic diseases and to determine the selection criteria for each technique.

METHODS

This was a retrospective medical records review of 168 patients who underwent TLH or LAVH performed by one surgeon. A chi-square test was used to compare the difference between the TLH and LAVH groups. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated for the relationship between the clinico-demographic factors of the patients.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the 2 groups with respect to age, parity, history of abdominal delivery, body mass index, and indication for hysterectomy. The operative time was similar between the 2 groups (P>.99). The uterine weight was greater in the LAVH group compared to the TLH group (P<.01). Ten patients were converted from TLH to LAVH, because of a large uterus and/or a lower segmental mass on the uterus, making it difficult to expose the Koh cup rim contour.

CONCLUSIONS

TLH and LAVH are safe, feasible methods by which to perform a hysterectomy. LAVH is preferred in patients with a mass involving the lower segment or a relatively large uterus.

Robotic Surgery in Gynecology

Advanced laparoscopic procedures for gynecologic surgery have not been widely adopted in clinical practice despite nearly 20 years of improvements in laparoscopic technology. The da Vinci® robotic surgical system was cleared for use in gynecologic surgery in the U.S in 2005. Many surgeons have embraced da Vinci® technology over conventional laparoscopy because of its technologic advantages of wristed instrumentation, high definition 3-D optics, ergonomics, and autonomy of camera control. Furthermore, many surgeons with limited advanced laparoscopic skills have successfully converted their practice from primarily laparotomy to minimally invasive surgery using the da Vinci® System. The purpose of this article is to review the development of robotic procedures in gynecology through the current literature. This article reviews recent peer-reviewed literature concerning robotic-assisted laparoscopic procedures including hysterectomy, myomectomy, radical hysterectomy, pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy, trachelectomy, parametrectomy, tubal anastamosis, sacrocolpopexy, and others. The majority of this literature consists of descriptive retrospective case series from the investigator's early experience; in fact these early reports represent innovation of a new operative technique. Some reports compare outcomes to open and standard laparoscopic procedures. Future prospective studies comparing complications, pain, return to routine activity, and long-term clinical outcomes with open and laparoscopic procedures will be necessary to completely appreciate the impact of robotic technology.

Robotic surgery for cervical cancer

The development of robotic technology has facilitated the application of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment and evaluation of patients with early, advanced, and recurrent cervical cancer. The application of robotic technology for selected patients with cervical cancer and the data available in the literature are addressed in the present review paper. The robotic radical hysterectomy technique developed at the Mayo Clinic Arizona is presented with data comparing 27 patients who underwent the robotic procedure with 2 matched groups of patients treated by laparoscopic (N = 31), and laparotomic radical hysterectomy (N = 35). A few other studies confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy and comparisons to either to the laparoscopic or open approach were discussed. Based on data from the literature, minimally invasive techniques including laparoscopy and robotics are preferable to laparotomy for patients requiring radical hysterectomy, with some advantages noted for robotics over laparoscopy. A prospective randomised trial is currently being performed under the auspices of the American Association of Gyneoclogic Laparoscopists comparing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (laparoscopy or robotics) with laparotomy. For early cervical cancer radical parametrectomy and fertility preserving trachelectomy have been performed using robotic technology and been shown to be feasible, safe, and easier to perform when compared to the laparoscopic approach. Similar benefits have been noted in the treatment of advanced and recurrent cervical cancer where complex procedures such as extraperitoneal paraortic lymphadenectomy and pelvic exenteration have been required.

CONCLUSION

Robotic technology better facilitates the surgical approach as compared to laparoscopy for technically challenging operations performed to treat primary, early or advanced, and recurrent cervical cancer. Although patient advantages are similar or slightly improved with robotics, there are multiple advantages for surgeons.