Robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer

Robot-Assisted Surgery in the Treatment of Gynecological Carcinoma and Malignancies: Introduction to the da Vinci Robotic Surgery System

Robotic surgery is a surgical intervention that was developed from traditional manual surgeries because of the intrusive procedures it uses. It is now accomplished in hospitals worldwide, and comprehensive programs for the application of technology in the management of gynecological cancer are being developed. Robotic surgery should be straightforwardly compared with manual and traditional laparoscopy to see if the higher indirect costs are justified by some improvements in patient studies. This paper aims to evaluate the procedure of robotic surgery and its implementation in gynecological cancer to verify its safeness, practicability, and effectiveness. A higher chance of infections is usually in classical surgery, particularly in comparison to laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Surgical and hospital stay are much less with any of these new technologies than the aforementioned; however, the drawbacks are the scarcity of robot systems, their high price, and the realization that it is only appropriate in learning institutions with infrastructure and highly skilled surgeons. In conclusion, tissue engineering constitutes a significant discovery and approach for treating gynecological cancer with improved methods than some other types of traditional surgery, and it will likely become dominant technology shortly.

Long-term oncological outcome in patients with cervical cancer after 3 trimodality treatment (radiotherapy, platinum-based chemotherapy, and robotic surgery)

Cervical cancer represents a general health issue spread all over the globe, which prompts the surge of scientific survey toward the rise of survival and condition of life of these patients. American and European guidelines suggest the open surgery, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery are the main therapeutic approaches for radical hysterectomy for patients with cervical cancer. This is the first survey to analyze the long-term oncological outcome of an extensive series of subjects cared for with multimodality treatment, here comprising robotic surgery.This study intents to evaluate the long-term oncological result in patients diagnosed with cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy (±chemotherapy) and robotic surgery compared with open surgery. Medical files of 56 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer who underwent a robotic hysterectomy and radiotherapy ± chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed.The median age at diagnosis was 50.5 (range: 23-70). Eleven patients (19.6%) presented in an early stage (IB-IIA) and 80.4% advanced stage (IIB-IVA). Overall response rate after radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy was 96.2%. Pathologic complete response was obtained in 64% of patients. After a median follow-up of 60 months (range: 6-105 months), 8 patients (14.2%) presented local recurrence or distant metastases. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 92% at 2 years and 84% at 3 and 5 years. Overall survival (OS) rates at 2, 3, and 5 years for patients with robotic surgery were 91%, 78%, and 73%, median OS not reached. OS was lower in the arm of open surgery (2, 3, and 5 years 87%, 71%, and 61%, respectively; median OS was 72 months P = .054). The multivariate analysis regarding the outcome of patients revealed an advantage for complete versus partial response (P < .002), for early versus advanced stages (P = .014) and a 10% gained in DFS at 3 years for patients in whom chemoradiotherapy was administered (DFS at 3 years 75% vs 85%) in patients with advanced stages.Robotic surgery has a favorable oncological outcome when associated with multimodal therapy.

The history of robotic surgery and its evolution: when illusion becomes reality

The term "robot" was concepted in the beginning of last century, coming originally from the Czech word "robota", meaning "labor". More recently, computer assistance and robotics based in the telepresence and virtual reality concept have been applied to surgical procedures. The application of robots in surgery dates approximately 35 years, experiencing significant growth in the last two decades fueled by the advent of advanced technologies. Despite its recent and brief status in surgery history, robotic technology has already proven its enhanced visualization, superior dexterity and precision during minimally invasive procedures. Currently, the worldwide diffused and predominant robot system used in surgery is Da Vinci by Intuitive Surgical, however robotic surgery evolution is far from over, with multiple potential competitors on the horizon pushing forward its paradigms. We aim to describe the history and evolution of robotic surgery in the last years as well as present its future perspectives.

Survey of current practices and opinions of German Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy members regarding the treatment of ovarian neoplasia by robotic surgery

PURPOSE

As data on this topic are sparse and contradictory, we aimed to ascertain the opinions of the members of the German Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy (AGE) regarding the use of robotic surgery in the treatment of ovarian malignancies.

METHODS

In 2015, an anonymous questionnaire was sent to AGE members to assess their views on the treatment of ovarian malignancies by robotic surgery according to T stage and the current treatment practices in their facilities.

RESULTS

Of the 228 respondents, 132 (58%) were fellows or attending physicians and 156 (68%) worked at university hospitals or tertiary referral centers. Most [n = 218 (96%)] respondents reported treating < 10% of their patients using robotic surgery. Respondents felt that T1 and borderline ovarian tumors, but not T2 (51%) or T3/4 (76%) tumors, should and could be treated by robot surgery. 162 (71%) respondents considered the currently available data on this subject to be insufficient, and 42% indicated their willingness to participate in clinical studies on the applicability of robotic surgery to the treatment of T1/2 ovarian tumors.

CONCLUSION

The majority of AGE members surveyed considered robotic surgery to be an option for the treatment of T1 ovarian malignancies and borderline ovarian tumors. However, prospective randomized studies are needed to determine the relevance of robotic surgery in this context.

A Combined One-Staged Robot-Assisted Sacral Chordoma Resection

BACKGROUND

The robotic surgery is an advanced modern minimally invasive technology, widely used in urologic oncology, and it has become useful in particular conditions. Over time, different surgical specialties made use of the robotic properties to minimize complications for high-risk procedures. A combined 1-staged robot-assisted multidisciplinary surgery with intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring can be a safe procedure to remove a sacral chordoma with low morbidity rates.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 64-year-old woman complained of a few months of drug-resistant low back and abdominal pain. The subsequent development of constipation brought the patient to undergo an abdominal computed tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging. Radiologic investigations revealed a large size sacral mass associated with a partial destruction of the sacrum and posterior compression of the rectum. The tumor was en bloc removed by a combined 1-staged anterior laparoscopic robot-assisted and posterior open lumbosacral approach with continue intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of sacral and pudendal plexuses. The histological diagnosis was of chordoma. After surgery, the patient reported pain relief and the total recovery of bowel dysfunction with good 11-month follow-up outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

This combined technique represents a promising treatment option in selected cases. The robotic technology combined with the experience of highly qualified staff can improve the surgical result by minimizing complications. However, longer follow-up is necessary to confirm the long-term effects in terms of recurrence and survival.

The institutional learning curve is associated with survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer-a retrospective study

Background

Despite recent advances in diagnosis and treatment, cervical cancer continues to be a significant health problem worldwide. Whereas robot-assisted surgery has advantages over the abdominal approach, and minimally invasive techniques are being used increasingly, these may be associated with a higher recurrence rate and lower overall survival than the abdominal approach. The objective of this study was to compare the surgical and survival outcomes between abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH).

Methods

A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from 2006 to 2018 was identified. Patients with stage IA to IB cervical cancer were included and grouped: ARH vs. RRH. The RRH group was further divided into two groups based on the year of enrollment: RRH1 (2006–2012) and RRH2 (2013–2018). Tumor characteristics, recurrence rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between the groups. P-values < 0.05 (two-sided) were considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 310 patients were identified: 142 and 168 underwent ARH and RRH, respectively. RRH1 and RRH2 had 77 and 91 patients, respectively. Interestingly, RRH2 was more likely to have a larger tumor size (1.7 ± 1.4 vs. 2.0 ± 1.1 vs. 2.4 ± 1.7 cm, P = 0.014) and higher stage (P < 0.001) than RRH1. However, RRH2 showed significantly favorable PFS in contrast to RRH1. There was no difference between ARH and RRH2 in PFS (P = 0.629), whereas overall, the RRH group showed significantly shorter PFS than the ARH group. In the multivariate analysis, the institutional learning curve represented by the operation year was one of the significant predictors for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.065, P = 0.0162), along with tumor size (HR 5.651, P = 0.0241).

Conclusions

The institutional learning curve, represented by the operation year, is one of the most significant factors associated with outcomes of RRH for early-stage cervical cancer.

Robotic Surgery Assisted Staged En-Bloc Sacrectomy for Sacral Chordoma: A Case Report

CASE

Two male patients aged 37 years and 39 years, diagnosed with sacral chordoma, underwent robotic-assisted preparatory adhesiolysis from the anterior aspect of the tumor, followed by posterior en-bloc partial sacrectomy. The average total operative time was 360 minutes (anterior docking + anterior console + posterior excision), and mean blood loss was 930 mL. Both patients were mobilized early, had no postoperative complications, and were free of local recurrence at 18 month of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted surgery is a novel, valid, safe, and minimally invasive technique which drastically reduces the associated surgical complications of single-staged posterior sacrectomy, resulting in excellent functional and oncological outcome.

The learning curves of robotic and three-dimensional laparoscopic surgery in cervical cancer

BACKGROUND: The 3D laparoscopy systems and robotic systems have been introduced into clinical practice for a few years. But the comparison of robotic and 3D laparoscopic gynecologic surgery is still needed.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the learning curves of robotic and 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer.

STUDY DESIGN: The operational duration, blood loss, peritoneal drainage of first 24 hours after operation, total hospitalization days, hospitalization days after operation, lymph nodes collected, learning curves and cost of robotic and 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer performed by one experienced surgeon were studied.

RESULTS: There was one surgeon who performed 37 cases of robotic and 24 cases of 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, and the turning point of learning curves was case 13^th and case 10^th. The differences of duration of operation, blood loss, peritoneal drainage of first 24 hours after operation, total hospitalization days, hospitalization days after operation, lymph nodes collected and perioperative complications were not statistically significant. But the cost of each robotic operation was higher than 3D operation.

CONCLUSIONS: The turning point of the learning curve of 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is earlier than that of robotic sugery in patients with cervical cancer, and there is no obvious benefit from robotic surgery than 3D surgery in the terms of short-term medical index and hospitalization cost.

The clinical experience of robot-assisted surgery in gynecologic cancer

The comparison of robotic and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic cancer still needs to be studied. In all, 98 consecutive cases of patients with gynecologic cancer undergoing robot-assisted hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, and another 98 consecutive cases of conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy during the same period in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University were included. The duration of the operation, blood loss, drainage during the first 24 h after the operation, total hospital stay, hospital stay after the operation, lymph nodes collected, perioperative complications, and the cost of each operation for both procedures were recorded. The duration of the operation was longer, and the cost of each operation was almost seven times higher in the robot group than that in the conventional laparoscopy group. But the differences with regard to blood loss, drainage during the first 24 h after the operation, total hospital stay, hospital stay after operation, the lymph nodes collected, and the rate of perioperative complications were not statistically significant. Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in gynecologic cancer is as feasible as conventional laparoscopic surgery. We recommend further studies about the cost and effect of RAS in gynecologic cancer.

Comparison of Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes with Laparotomy, and Laparoscopic or Robotic Surgery for Women with Endometrial Cancer

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes in endometrial cancer patients treated with laparotomy, and laparoscopic or robotic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Endometrial cancer patients who underwent primary surgery from January 2011 to December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative outcomes, including estimated blood loss (EBL), operation time, number of lymph nodes retrieved, and intra and postoperative complications, were reviewed. Recovery time, disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared.

RESULTS

Of the total of 218 patients, 143 underwent laparotomy, 47 laparoscopy, and 28 robotic surgery. The laparotomy group had the highest EBL (300, 200, 200 ml, p<0.05) while the robotic group had the longest operative time (302 min) as compared with laparoscopy (180 min) and laparotomy (125 min) (p<0.05). Intra and postoperative complications were not different with any of the surgical approaches. No significant difference in number of lymph nodes retrieved was identified. The longest hospital stay was reported in the laparotomy group (four days) but there was no difference between the laparoscopy (three days) and robotic (three days) groups. Recovery was significantly faster in robotic group than laparotomy group (14 and 28 days, p=0.003). No significant difference in DFS and OS at 21 months of median follow up time was observed among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery has more favorable outcomes, including lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and faster recovery time than laparotomy. It also has equivalent perioperative complications and short term oncologic outcomes. MIS is feasible as an alternative option to surgery of endometrial cancer.

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.

Mini-laparoscopic versus robotic radical hysterectomy plus systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in early cervical cancer patients. A multi-institutional study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to verify possible differences in terms of perioperative outcomes and complications between mini-laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (mLRH) and robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (RRH) in patients with early cervical cancer (ECC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, thirty women with early stage cervical cancer who underwent mini-laparoscopic radical hysterectomy plus lymphadenectomy (mLRH) were compared with a cohort of thirty women who underwent robotic multiport radical hysterectomy (RRH). The study involved patients, between August 2010 and December 2012, from three Italian institutions: National Cancer Institute of Rome, University of Insubria, Varese, and the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Rome.

RESULTS

No significant differences between groups were observed in terms of age, BMI, previous abdominal surgery or FIGO stage. Operative time, blood loss, need of blood transfusion, risk of intra- and post-operative complications, and lymph nodes yield were similar between mLRH and RRH in patients with ECC. The median length of hospital stay was 2 days in the mLRH group and 3 days in the RRH group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The few differences we registered do not seem clinically relevant, thus making the two procedures comparable. The decision on how to gain best access for radical hysterectomy considers the surgeon's skill and experience with the different possible approaches. Further randomized trials are needed to determine whether mini-laparoscopic techniques truly offer any advantages.

Robotic cholecystectomy and resident education: the UC Davis experience

INTRODUCTION

The popularity of robotic surgery highlights the need for strategies to integrate this technique into surgical education. We present 5 year data for robotic cholecystectomy (RC) as a model for training residents.

METHODS

Data were collected on all RC over 66 months. Duration for docking the robot (S2) and performing RC (S3), and surgical outcomes, were recorded. We used a linear mixed effects model to investigate learning curves.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trainees performed 160 RCs, with most performing more than four. One case was aborted due to haemodynamic instability, and two were converted to open surgery due to adhesions. There were no technical complications. The duration of S2 (mean = 6.2 ± 3.6 min) decreased considerably (p = 0.027). Trainees also demonstrated decrease in duration of S3 (mean = 38.4 ± 15.4 min), indicating improvement in technique (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

RC is an effective model for teaching residents. Significant and reproducible improvement can be realized with low risk of adverse outcomes.

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.

The current status of robotic oncologic surgery

The use of robotic assistance facilitates minimally invasive surgery and has been widely adopted across multiple specialties. This article reviews the published literature on use of this technology for treatment of oncologic conditions. PubMed searches were performed for articles published between 2000 and 2012 using the keywords "robotic" or "robotic surgery" in conjunction with "oncology" or "cancer." Although the most common use for robotics was to treat urologic oncologic conditions, it has also been widely adopted for gynecologic, general, thoracic, and head and neck surgeries. For several procedures, there is evidence that robotics offers short-term benefits such as shorter lengths of stay and lower intraoperative blood loss, with safety profiles and oncologic outcomes comparable to open or conventional laparoscopic approaches. However, long-term oncologic outcomes are generally lacking, and robotic surgeries are more costly than open or laparoscopic surgeries. Robotic technology is widely used in oncologic surgery with demonstrated short-term advantages. However, whether the benefits of robotics justify the higher costs warrant large comparative effectiveness studies with long-term outcomes.