Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgical Staging for Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer

Single-port robotic surgery using the EDGE SP1000 surgical system in gynaecology: Initial experience of a single institution

BACKGROUND

The EDGE SP1000 is a newly developed single-port (SP) robotic surgical system whose clinical evaluation in gynaecology has not yet been addressed.

METHODS

This is a single-arm clinical trial evaluating the perioperative outcomes of patients receiving EDGE SP1000 assisted surgeries. Patients with either benign or malignant gynaecological diseases suitable for robotic surgery were included, and their data were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were included and 8 of them had malignant conditions. The total operative time was 190.1 ± 83.3 min for benign diseases and 254.4 ± 59.4 min for malignant diseases. The mean estimated blood loss was 25 mL (range, 5-100). No assistant ports or conversions were required. No perioperative complications occurred. Overall satisfaction with the umbilical wounds was expressed at the 1-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

EDGE SP1000 SP robotic surgical system is technically feasible and safe in various gynaecological surgeries with good cosmetic effects.

Efficacy of transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a retrospective comparison study

Background

Although single-port laparoscopy surgery has been evaluated for several years, it has not been widely adopted by gynecologic oncologists. The objective was to compare the perioperative outcomes and survival of endometrial cancer (EC) patients undergoing transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (TU-LESS) with multi-port laparoscopic surgery (MLS).

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective comparative monocentric study including patients treated between December 2017 and October 2021. The perioperative outcomes and survival of EC patients who had surgery via TU-LESS or MLS were compared, by propensity matching.

Results

A total of 156 patients were included (TU-LESS vs. MLS: 78 vs. 78). The conversion rate of TU-LESS and MLS was 5.13% and 2.56%, respectively (P=0.681). The operation time was comparable between the two groups [207.5min (180-251) vs. 197.5min (168.8-225), P=0.095]. There was no significant difference between the two groups in exhaustion time, perioperative complications, or postoperative complications. While, the TU-LESS group had a shorter out-of-bed activity time [36 hours (24-48) vs. 48 hours (48-72), P<0.001] and a lower visual analog pain scale 36 hours after surgery [1 (1-2) vs. 2 (1-2), P<0.001] than the MLS group. The length of hospital stay was similar in the two groups [5(4-6) vs. 5(4-5), P=0.599]. Following surgery, 38.5% of the TU-LESS patients and 41% of the MLS patients got adjuvant therapy (P=0.744). The median follow-up time for TU-LESS and MLS cohorts was 45 months (range: 20-66) and 43 months (range: 18-66), respectively. One TU-LESS patient and one MLS patient died following recurrence. The 4-year overall survival was similar in both groups (98.3% vs. 98.5%, P=0.875).

Conclusion

TU-LESS is a feasible and safe option with comparable perioperative outcomes and survival of MLS in endometrial cancer. With the growing acceptance of sentinel lymph node biopsy, TU-LESS of endometrial cancer may be a viable option for patients and surgeons.

Variations in sexual function after laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy in women with benign gynecologic diseases

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) has become a novel minimally invasive approach applied as an option to perform hysterectomy. The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of LESS hysterectomy on the sexual function in women with benign gynecologic indications. From October 2016 to May 2021, a total of 486 premenopausal, sexually active women were eligible. Female sexual function index (FSFI) was used to assess sexual function preoperatively and 6, 12 months postoperatively. Total FSFI score ≤26.55 indicated female sexual dysfunction (FSD). Compared with pre-operation, each subdomain and total FSFI scores increased at 6 (all p < 0.05) and 12 months (all p < 0.001). Prevalence of FSD decreased at 6 (30 vs 39.9%, p = 0.002) and 12 months (27 vs 39.9%, p < 0.001). In patients with preoperative FSD, each subdomain and total FSFI scores improved at 6 and 12 months (all p < 0.001), while decreased at 6 months (p < 0.001) and had no significant difference at 12 months (p = 0.54) in patients without preoperative FSD. These results suggest that LESS hysterectomy has a significant positive effect on the sexual function in women with benign gynecologic diseases, especially those with preoperative FSD.

Laparo-endoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for early-stage endometrial cancer.

METHODS

Patients with clinical stage IA, IB, grade 1-3 endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to undergo LESS or CLS. The primary endpoint was the non-inferiority of LESS to CLS in terms of operation time and the number of resected pelvic lymph nodes. We set the non-inferior margin of the operation time as within 15% (24 min) and the number of resected pelvic lymph nodes as within 20% (5.2 lymph nodes).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the LESS group (n = 53) and the CLS group (n = 54) in terms of age, weight, body mass index, parity, menopausal status, history of abdominal surgery, and preoperative CA-125 levels. The total operation time was comparable between the two groups. On average, 4.6 fewer pelvic lymph nodes were retrieved in the LESS group, which was within the non-inferiority margin. There were no significant differences in the incidence of intra- and postoperative complications, estimated blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. After a median follow-up time of 34 months (range, 2-242), the progression-free survival rates were 96.2% and 98.1% (P = 0.55) in the LESS group and the CLS group, and the overall survival rates were 98.1% and 100.0% (P = 0.31), respectively.

CONCLUSION

LESS surgical staging was non-inferior to CLS and had acceptable feasibility, safety, and efficacy for the surgical management of early-stage endometrial cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov identifier number: NCT01679522.

Chopstick technique versus cross technique in LESS hysterectomy (CCLEH study): a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background

The traditional cross technique can be used to complete most laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) procedures, but some relatively precise operations, such as vaginal stump suturing, are challenging. In practice, we have introduced a novel technique named the chopstick technique and applied it to more complex operations, such as cervical cancer operations, and found that it contributes to performing delicate surgery. The efficacy and safety of two different surgical techniques in LESS hysterectomy remain to be validated.

Methods

Patients who undergo total hysterectomy will be enrolled in this RCT. Stratified randomization will be performed according to uterine size (< 10 cm, 10–15cm, ≥ 15 cm). The participants will be divided into the chopstick technique group or cross technique group to undergo laparoendoscopic single-site total hysterectomy (LESS-TH), and then the perioperative and postoperative data, including the total operation time and other times, transfer rates, estimated blood loss, surgeon fatigue, intraoperative and postoperative complications (within 8 weeks after surgery), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) scores, postoperative hospital stay, and hospitalization expenses, will be evaluated. The primary outcome is the operating time for total hysterectomy under LESS, and the other outcomes are secondary outcomes.

Discussion

It is expected that the efficacy of the two techniques in LESS, the chopstick technique vs. the cross technique, will be compared and accumulate safety data on the new techniques will be accumulated.

Trial registration

ChiCTR2000040843, registered on June 16,2020

Protocol version:

Version 2.0; Date: 2020.05.10

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06650-w.

Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and evaluate the safety, advantages and clinical application value of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for endometrial cancer by comparing it with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the published literature comparing LESS with CLS in the treatment of endometrial cancer. English databases including PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library and Chinese databases including Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and China Biology Medicine were searched for eligible observational studies up to July 10, 2019. We then evaluated the quality of the selected comparative studies before performing a meta-analysis using the RevMan 5.3 software. The complications, surgical time, blood loss during surgery, postoperative length of hospital stay and number of lymph nodes removed during surgery were compared between the 2 surgical approaches.

RESULTS

Four studies with 234 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. We found that there was no statistically significant difference in complications between the 2 surgical approaches [odds ratio (OR): 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-2.21, P = .47, I2 = 0%]. There was no statistically significant difference in blood loss between the 2 surgical approaches [mean difference (MD): -61.81, 95% CI: -130.87 to -7.25, P = .08, I2 = 74%]. There was no statistically significant difference in surgical time between the 2 surgical approaches (MD: -11.51, 95% CI: -40.19 to 17.16, P = .43, I2 = 81%). There was also no statistically significant difference in postoperative length of hospital stay between the 2 surgical approaches (MD: -0.56, 95% CI: -1.25 to -0.13, P = .11, I2 = 72%). Both pelvic and paraaortic lymph nodes can be removed with either of the 2 procedures. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of paraaortic lymph nodes and total lymph nodes removed during surgery between the 2 surgical approaches [(MD: -0.11, 95% CI: -3.12 to 2.91, P = .29, I2 = 11%) and (MD: -0.53, 95% CI (-3.22 to 2.16), P = .70, I2 = 83%)]. However, patients treated with LESS had more pelvic lymph nodes removed during surgery than those treated with CLS (MD: 3.33, 95% CI: 1.05-5.62, P = .004, I2 = 32%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with CLS, LESS did not reduce the incidence of complications or shorten postoperative hospital stay. Nor did it increase surgical time or the amount of bleeding during surgery. LESS can remove lymph nodes and ease postoperative pain in the same way as CLS. However, LESS improves cosmesis by leaving a single small scar.

Two-port access for laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer using conventional laparoscopic instruments

Minimally invasive surgery is the first-line management for endometrial cancer. The role of 2-port access laparoscopy (TPA) has been underestimated. Compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CL), TPA is associated with smaller total incision size and less postoperative pain. Compared to single-incision laparoscopic surgery, no specific instruments and surgical techniques are needed. This study primarily evaluated the surgical and pathologic outcomes of TPA with conventional instruments, and additionally evaluated the surgeon’s learning curve. Consecutive patients who underwent TPA and CL for endometrial cancer between 2015 and 2019 were included. Baseline characteristics were recorded. In total, 148 patients (TPA, 89; CL, 59) were identified. The baseline characteristics were similar, except for a greater proportion of patients in the CL group receiving para-aortic lymph node dissection (5.62% vs. 35.59%, P < 0.01). The mean operation time was significantly less in the TPA group (152.09 vs. 187.15 min; P < 0.01). Both the groups had comparable 5-year progression-free survival (TPA, 86.68%) and 5-year overall survival rates (TPA, 93.24%). Analysis of the learning curve showed that the operation time decreased after 3–4 procedures. TPA using conventional laparoscopic instruments for endometrial cancer is feasible and is easily accessible to patients and surgeons.

Laparoscopic vs. robotic-assisted laparoscopy in endometrial cancer staging: large retrospective single-institution study

Objective

The aim of this study is to analyze and draw the potential differences between the robotic-assisted surgery (RS) and the laparoscopy (LPS) in endometrial cancer staging.

Methods

In this single-institution retrospective study we enrolled 1,221 consecutive clinical stage I–III endometrial cancer patients undergone minimally invasive surgical staging. We compared patients treated by LPS and by RS, on the basis of perioperative and oncological outcomes (disease-free survival [DFS] and overall survival [OS]). A sub-analysis of the high-risk endometrial cancer population was performed in the 2 cohorts.

Results

The 2 cohorts (766 treated by LPS and 455 by RS) were homogeneous in terms of perioperative and pathological data. We recorded differences in number of relapse/progression (11.7% in LPS vs. 7% in RS, p=0.008) and in number of deaths (9.8% in LPS vs. 4.8% in RS, p=0.002). Whereas, univariate and multivariate analyses according to DFS and OS confirmed that the surgical approach did not influence the DFS or the OS. In the multivariable analysis the association of the age and grading was significant for DFS and OS. In the sub-analysis of the 426 high risk EC patients (280 in LPS and 146 in RS) the univariate and the multivariate confirmed the influence of the age in DFS and OS, independently of the minimally invasive approach.

Conclusions

In our large retrospective analysis, we confirmed that the RS and LPS have similar efficacy and safety for endometrial cancer staging also for the high-risk endometrial cancer patients.

Meta-analysis of Laparoendoscopic Single-site and Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Hysterectomy Compared with Multiport Hysterectomy: Real Benefits or Diminishing Returns?

OBJECTIVE

Because minimally invasive hysterectomy has become increasingly performed by gynecologic surgeons, strategies to further improve outcomes have emerged, including innovations in surgical approach. We sought to evaluate the intraoperative and perioperative outcomes and success rates of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) hysterectomy in comparison with those of conventional multiport laparoscopic (MPL) hysterectomy.

DATA SOURCES

A librarian-led search of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed for case-control, retrospective cohort, and randomized controlled trials through May 2020.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

The inclusion criterion was publications comparing LESS or vNOTES hysterectomy with conventional MPL hysterectomy for the management of benign or malignant gynecologic disease. Four authors reviewed the abstracts and selected studies for full-text review. The manuscripts were reviewed, separately, by 2 authors for final inclusion and assessment of bias using either the risk-of-bias assessment tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion with, or arbitration by, a third reviewer. The titles of 2259 articles were screened, and 108 articles were chosen for abstract screening. Full-text screening resulted in 29 studies eligible for inclusion.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Extracted data were placed into REDCap (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN), and MPL hysterectomy was compared with single-port hysterectomy using meta-analysis models. The outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL); operative (OP) time; transfusion; length of hospital stay (LOS); conversion to laparotomy; visual analog scale pain scores at 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours; any complications; and 7 subcategories of complications. Random-effects models were built for continuous outcomes and binary outcomes, and the results are reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals, respectively. Meta-analysis could not be performed for vNOTES vs MPL, given that only 3 studies met the eligibility criteria. When LESS and MPL were compared, there was a shorter OP time for MPL (SMD = -0.2577, p <.001) and lower rate of transfusion (OR = 0.1697, p <.001), without a significant difference in EBL (SMD = -0.0243, p = .689). There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher risk of conversion to laparotomy in the MPL group (OR = 2.5871, p = .078). Pain scores were no different 12 or 24 hours postoperatively but were significantly higher at 48 hours postoperatively (SMD = 0.1861, p = .035) in the MPL group. There were no differences in overall or individual complications between the LESS and MPL groups. In the vNOTES comparison, 2 studies demonstrated shorter OP times, with reduced LOS and no difference in complications.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, we identified that LESS hysterectomy has comparable and low overall rates of complications and conversion to laparotomy compared with MPL. Notably, the OP time seems longer, and the pain scores at 48 hours may be lower with LESS hysterectomy than with MPL hysterectomy. Limited data suggest that vNOTES hysterectomy may have shorter OP times and improved EBL, transfusion rates, LOS, and pain scores compared with MPL hysterectomy, but further study is needed. There remains a deficit in high-quality data to understand the differences in cosmesis among these surgical approaches. The quality of data for this analysis seems to be low to moderate.

Percutaneous-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Prospective Comparison

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility of percutaneous approach, we prospectively compared our experience in percutaneous-assisted hysterectomy (PSS-H) with that in a series of laparoscopic hysterectomies (LPS-Hs).

METHODS

In this multicentric cohort study, from May 2015 to October 2017, 160 patients affected by benign and malignant gynecological conditions were considered eligible for minimally invasive surgery (MIS): 80 patients received PSS-H and 80 LPS-H. In each group, 30 cases of low-/intermediate-risk endometrial cancer were enrolled. For both groups, we documented preoperative outcomes, postoperative pain, and cosmetic outcomes.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were noted in baseline characteristics or operative time. We observed significant differences in estimated blood loss: median of 50 cc (PSS-H) and 100 cc (LPS-H) (p = 0.0001). In LPS-H, we reported 4 (5.0%) intraoperative complications and 1 (1.3%) in PSS-H. Thirty-day complications were 4 (5%) in PSS-H and 11 (13.8%) in LPS-H (p = 0.058). No significative differences were found in visual analog scale score, despite a relevant disparity in cosmetic outcome (p = 0.0001). For oncological cases, the 2 techniques had comparable intra- and postoperative outcomes and oncological accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we reported that PSS-H is comparable to LPS-H for intra- and perioperative outcomes and postoperative pain, while PSS-H seems to be superior in cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. PSS-H may represent a valid alternative in ultra-MIS for benign gynecological conditions and low-/intermediate-risk endometrial cancer.

Role of single-site and mini-laparoscopy in gynecologic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy is a surgical procedure that has been used widely in medicine over the last thirty years. In gynecology, laparoscopy is the "gold standard" for the majority of gynecological procedures, as its superiority over laparotomy has been widely demonstrated. In recent years, the current trend of gynecologists is to make laparoscopy surgery even less invasive by reducing the number of incisions in the skin, as it happens with laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, or by reducing the size of them as in mini-laparoscopy. The aim of this work was to perform an extensive review and update of the evolution of single-port surgery and mini-laparoscopic surgery in gynecology as well as to evaluate its current role in this field.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed during April and May 2020. PRISMA guidelines were followed for the literature search.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The main objective of performing less invasive procedures is to reduce both intraoperative complications (decreased risk of bleeding or damage to internal organs), and postoperative ones (hernias through the trocar) and improve cosmetic results. Results of studies about LESS and mini-LPS showed encouraging results, being both of them safe with a similar perioperative and postoperative outcome. They have the approval of the international surgical community as well as patients' satisfaction with cosmetic results.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery is the present and future in gynecological surgery. More prospective randomized trials are needed in order to obtain valid results and affirm that both LESS and Mini-LPS are superior to conventional laparoscopy.

Does surgical platform impact recurrence and survival? A study of utilization of multiport, single-port, and robotic-assisted laparoscopy in endometrial cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hysterectomy is the standard of care in the majority of women diagnosed with endometrial cancer via robotic-assisted, multiport, and single-port laparoscopy technology. Although safe and efficacious, it is unclear how oncologic outcomes are impacted by surgical platform.

OBJECTIVE

To identify differences in progression-free survival and overall survival in women undergoing minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer staging via either multiport, single-port, or robotic-assisted laparoscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

A multicenter, single-institution retrospective cohort study was performed in women with a diagnosis of endometrial cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery from 2009 to 2015. Data were collected for demographics, pathologic information, adjuvant treatment, and disease status. Pearson χ² and Fisher exact tests were used to evaluate risk factors for outcomes, Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards were used to evaluate differences in time to progression or death, and multivariate regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 1150 women with endometrial cancer underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopy (n=652), multiport laparoscopy (n=214), or single-port laparoscopy (n=284). The median age and body mass index of women was 62.0 years and 33.5 kg/m², respectively. The majority of patients had endometrioid histology (88.1%), stage IA (74.7%) or IB disease (13.1%) and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics grade 1 (57.4%) or 2 (26.0%) histology. Lymphovascular space invasion was present in 24.7% (n=283). Adjuvant radiation was given in 34.2% of cases, with 21.9% receiving vaginal brachytherapy, 6.6% pelvic radiation, and 5.4% both. For the entire cohort, there were no differences in progression-free survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (94.2%, 91.4%, 87.4%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (94.5%, 92.9%, 88.8%), and single-port laparoscopy (93.6%, 91.2%, 90.0%) (P=.93), respectively. Similarly, there were no differences in overall survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (94.4%, 91.8%, 91.8%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (95.6%, 93.4%, 90.7%), and single-port laparoscopy (95.0, 93.1, 91.8) (P=.99), respectively. Among women with stage IA and IB disease, no difference existed for progression-free survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (94.2%, 91.4%, 87.4%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (94.5%, 92.9%, 88.8%), and single-port laparoscopy (93.6, 91.2, 90.0) (P=.93), respectively. Similarly, among women with stage I disease, there was no difference in overall survival at 2, 3, and 5 years for multiport laparoscopy (96.2%, 95.0%, 95.0%), robotic-assisted laparoscopy (96.6%, 95.4%, 93.3%), and single-port laparoscopy (96.6%, 95.0%, 93.4%) (P=.89). Rather, progression-free survival and overall survival were predicted by age >65 years, stage, grade, and histology (P<.05). On multivariate analysis, modality of surgery did not impact overall survival or progression-free survival (robotic-assisted laparoscopy, hazard ratio, 1.28, P=.50; single-port laparoscopy, hazard ratio, 0.84, P=.68 vs multiport laparoscopy). Age >65 years (hazard ratio, 5.42, P<.001) and advanced stage disease (P=.003) were associated with decreased overall survival.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective cohort, there was no difference in progression-free survival or overall survival in women undergoing surgery for endometrial cancer via robotic-assisted laparoscopy, single-port laparoscopy, or multiport laparoscopy.

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Surgery for Patients With Borderline Ovarian Tumors

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare surgical and oncologic outcomes of open and laparoscopic surgery in patients with borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included patients with BOTs who underwent open (n = 433) or laparoscopic (n = 210) surgery between 1990 and 2015. Surgical outcomes, perioperative morbidity, and disease-free survival and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age, histologic type of tumor, and laterality of tumor. However, body mass index was slightly higher for the open surgery group (P = 0.046). The open surgery group had a higher serum cancer antigen 125 level (P < 0.001), larger tumor size (P < 0.001), more frequent radical surgery (P = 0.001), higher stage (P = 0.034), and higher incidence of invasive implants (P = 0.035). The operative time (P < 0.001), time interval to return of bowel movement (P < 0.001), and length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001) were significantly shorter and estimated blood loss was significantly less (P < 0.001) in the laparoscopic group. Perioperative complications were documented in 5 (2.4%) patients in the laparoscopic surgery group and 17 (3.9%) in the open surgery group (P = 0.064). Twenty-three (5.3%) patients in the open surgery group and 9 (4.3%) in the laparoscopic surgery group had recurrence (P = 0.902) at a median follow-up of 57 months. The 10-year disease-free survival was 96% and 97% for the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively (P = 0.851), with no significant difference between the groups after adjusting for independent factors (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-2.4; P = 0.999). The 10-year overall survival was 99% for both groups, respectively (P = 0.441).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery and open surgery showed similar survival outcomes in BOTs. The surgical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery were more favorable.

Robotic single-site staging operation for early-stage endometrial cancer: initial experience at a single institution

Objective

The aims of this study were to introduce surgical guidelines, and to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a robotic single-site staging (RSSS) operation for early-stage endometrial cancer.

Methods

Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages IA to IB) from endometrial curettage and preoperative imaging studies were selected at Dongsan Medical Center from March 2014 to November 2015. All surgical procedures, including hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, bilateral pelvic node dissection, and cytology aspiration, were performed by robotic single-site instruments (da Vinci Si^® surgical system; Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).

Results

A total of 15 women with early-stage endometrial cancer underwent the RSSS operation. The median patient age and body mass index were 53 years (range, 37-70 years) and 25.4 kg/m² (range, 18.3-46.4 kg/m²). The median docking time, console time, and total operative time were 8 minutes (range, 4-15 minutes), 75 minutes (range, 55-115 minutes), and 155 minutes (range, 125-190 minutes), respectively. The median retrieval of both pelvic lymph nodes was 9 (range, 6-15). There were no conversions to laparoscopy or laparotomy.

Conclusion

The RSSS operation is feasible and safe in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer. In this study, operative times were reasonable, and the surgical procedure was well-tolerated by the patients. Further evaluation of patients with early-stage endometrial cancer should be performed in large-scale comparative studies using the laparoendoscopic, single-site staging operation to confirm the safety and benefits of the RSSS operation for early-stage endometrial cancer.

Laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy with the aid of intraabdominal retractors

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility and clinical efficacy of a novel intraabdominal retractor device in laparoendoscopic single-site nephrectomy(LESS-N).

METHODS

Between February 2012 and February 2017, 98 patients underwent LESS-N in our institution, including 38 patients with benign renal disease and 60 patients with malignant renal disease. 39 were performed conventional LESS-N(C-LESS-N) and 59 were performed intraabdominal retractor-assisted LESS-N(IAR-LESS-N). Demographic data, and perioperative and postoperative data were collected and analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

All the procedures were completed successfully. In C-LESS-N group, four patients were added one 5-mm additional trocar and two patients were converted to open surgery. In IAR-LESS-N group, no patients required additional trocars or conversion to open surgery. The mean operative time was lower in IAR-LESS-N group than that in C-LESS-N group (94.2 min vs 127.4 min, P < 0.05). The mean renal vascular management time declined from 25.4 min in C-LESS-N group to 18.4 min in IAR-LESS-N group (P < 0.05). The mean estimated blood loss was 128.6 ml in C-LESS-N group and 102.3 ml in IAR-LESS-N group (P < 0.05). Two patients in C-LESS-N group required blood transfusion, while none of the patients in IAR-LESS-N group did. No severe postoperative complications occurred in both groups. Study limitations included retrospective study, short follow-up, and accumulated surgical experience and skills.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraabdominal retractors allow performance of LESS-N with improved working space, quicker renal hilar management, and shortened total operative time. It is expected that the application of intraabdominal retractors, along with the new robotic platform might revive LESS and translate into a renewed future interest of LESS.

Transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site radical prostatectomy and cystectomy with the aid of a transurethral port: a feasibility study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the surgical technique and report early outcomes of transurethral assisted laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) radical prostatectomy (RP) and LESS radical cystectomy (RC) in a single institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2014 and March 2016, a total of 114 LESS RPs and RCs were performed, comprising 68 LESS RPs, 38 LESS RCs with cutaneous ureterostomy (CU) and eight LESS RCs with orthotopic ileal neobladder (OIN). Access was achieved via a single-port, with four channels placed through a transumblical incision. After the apex of prostate was separated from the urethra, a self-developed port ('Zhu's port') was inserted through the urethra to facilitate resection of prostate and urethrovesical anastomosis. The peri-operative and postoperative data were collected and analysed retrospectively. Patients were followed up postoperatively for evidence of long-term side effects.

RESULTS

All the procedures were completed successfully. No conversion to conventional laparoscopic surgery was necessary. For LESS RP, the average operating time was 152 min. Estimated blood loss was 117 mL. The mean hospital stay was 16.4 days after surgery. For LESS RC with CU and LESS RC with OIN, the mean operating times were 215 and 328 min, mean estimated blood loss was 175 and 252 mL, and mean hospital stay was 9.4 and 18.2 days, respectively. Six patients required blood transfusion (5.26%). Intra-operative complications occurred in two patients (1.75%), and postoperative complications in nine (7.89%). Fourteen out of 68 (20.6%) patients who underwent LESS RP had positive surgical margins. Follow-up ranged from 10 to 30.6 months. In the prostate cancer cases, good urinary control was observed in 35.3%, 97.1% and 100% of patients at 1, 6 and 12 months after the operation, respectively, while biochemical recurrence was observed in 11.8% patients. In the bladder cancer cases, two patients had local recurrence and two patients had distant metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that LESS RP and LESS RC are feasible and safe with the aid of a transurethral port. Operating through the transurethral port might overcome the challenges posed by the single-port laparoscopic approach.

Combined laparoendoscopic single-site ureterolithotomy and flexible cystoscopy in the treatment of concurrent large upper ureteral and renal stones

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to present the authors' experience with technical recommendations for the treatment of concurrent large upper ureteral and renal stones.

METHODS

Between September 2014 and March 2016, laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) ureterolithotomy with renal stone extraction or holmium laser lithotripsy under flexible cystoscopy was performed on 15 patients who had concurrent upper ureteral and renal stones. The ureteral stone was treated with LESS ureterolithotomy. After the ureteral stone had been removed, a flexible cystoscope was inserted through one of the laparoscopic ports into the renal pelvis and collecting systems. Renal stones were extracted with a stone basket or broken by a holmium laser and then removed. The perioperative and postoperative data were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Patients were followed up postoperatively for evidence of long-term side-effects.

RESULTS

Nine patients underwent LESS ureterolithotomy and flexible cystoscope-assisted renal stone extraction. Six patients underwent concomitant holmium laser lithotripsy because of larger renal stones. All procedures were completed successfully. The ureteral stones were 15-23 mm in diameter and the renal stones were 4-20 mm in diameter. The mean surgery time was 156 min. Estimated blood loss was 70 ml. Complete stone clearance was confirmed by postoperative imaging in all patients. The median length of hospital stay after surgery was 9.1 days. No intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred during a mean follow-up of 10.2 months.

CONCLUSIONS

LESS ureterolithotomy with renal stone extraction or holmium laser lithotripsy under flexible cystoscopy can be considered an effective treatment for patients with concurrent large ureteral and renal stones.

Feasibility of reduced port surgery applying Higuchi's transverse incision

Objective

Higuchi's transverse incision is made at a lower position than the Pfannenstiel transverse incision and is superior in terms of cosmetic outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine the safety and efficacy of novel forms of reduced port surgery for ovarian cysts and uterine fibroids applying Higuchi's transverse incision.

Methods

In 33 patients with ovarian cysts who underwent low-position single-incision laparoscopic surgery (L-SILS)-modified single-port laparoscopy placed in the 2-3-cm Higuchi's incision above the pubis, patient's characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared with those of patients who underwent multiport laparoscopy (n = 53). In addition, 18 patients with uterine fibroids who underwent dual-port laparoscopically assisted myomectomy without using power morcellators and conventional four-port laparoscopically assisted myomectomy were investigated.

Results

There were no significant differences between L-SILS and multiport laparoscopy in tumor diameter, bleeding, hospital stay, or postoperative pain. However, the L-SILS group demonstrated significantly shorter operative and pneumoperitoneum times (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01). In comparison with cases of uterine fibroids, no significant differences were found in maximum fibroid diameter, operative time, pneumoperitoneum time, or bleeding. However, the dual-port laparoscopically assisted myomectomy group demonstrated a significantly shorter length of hospital stay than the conventional laparoscopically assisted myomectomy group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

We reported novel forms of reduced port surgery applying Higuchi's transverse incision. It was suggested that these procedures are relatively simple, but ensure the same safety and efficacy as conventional methods. We intend to increase the number of cases and examine safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction for these procedures.

Predictive Factor of Conversion to Laparotomy in Minimally Invasive Surgical Staging for Endometrial Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to identify risk factors associated with laparotomy conversion during total laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study examining endometrial cancer cases that underwent hysterectomy-based surgical staging initiated via conventional laparoscopic approach. Factors related to patient, tumor, and surgeon were examined to establish risk of laparotomy conversion using a multivariate logistic regression model.

RESULTS

There were 251 cases identified including 30 cases (12.0%) of laparotomy conversion. The most common indication for laparotomy conversion was a large uterus (27.0%), followed by extensive adhesions (24.3%) and surgical complications (18.9%). Outcomes of cases resulting in laparotomy conversion include longer surgical time (333 vs 224 minutes, P < 0.001), larger blood loss (350 vs 100 mL, P < 0.001), longer hospital stay (4 vs 2 days, P < 0.001), and increased risk of hospital readmission (10% vs 1.4%, P = 0.024). In multivariate analysis, morbid obesity (odds ratio [OR], 4.51; P = 0.011), suboptimal pelvic examination or enlarged uterus during preoperative evaluation (OR, 3.55; P = 0.034), para-aortic lymphadenectomy (OR, 10.5; P = 0.001), uterine size 250 g or greater (OR, 3.49; P = 0.026), and extrauterine disease (OR, 4.68; P = 0.012) remained the independent predictors for laparotomy conversion. The following numbers of risk factors were significantly correlated with laparotomy-conversion rate: none, 1.1%; single risk factor, 5.3% (OR, 5.00; P = 0.15); double risk factors, 21.7% (OR, 24.9; P = 0.002); and triple or more risk factors, 50% (OR, 90.0; P < 0.001). Ultrasonographic 3-dimensional volumes of 496 cm in preoperative uterine size correlate with actual uterine weight of 250 g (Y = 61.5 + 0.38X, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparotomy conversion significantly impacts outcomes of patients with endometrial cancer. In this setting, our predictive model for laparotomy conversion will be useful to guide the surgical management of endometrial cancer.

Single-access laparoscopic approach in the surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: A single-institution experience and review of literature

BACKGROUND:

The aim of this study was to assess the surgical and oncological outcome for the management of endometrial cancer (EC) by laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent a LESS for EC. All the patients were treated by the same surgical team between July 2009 and June 2013 at the Gynaecologic Oncologic Unit, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.

RESULTS:

A total of 50 women were included, with a median age of 45 years (range, 39-84 years) and a median body mass index (BMI) of 21.8 kg/m² (range, 19-48 kg/m²). Median operative time was 100 min (range, 50-240 min), median blood loss was 90 mL (range, 10-300 mL) and median hospital stay was 3 days (range, 2-9 days). The median number of pelvic lymph nodes retrieved was 14 (range, 5-20). No intraoperative complications occurred, but there were 4 postoperative complications. Two patients required a laparoscopic conversion. The median follow-up was 36 months (range, 16-62 months) and no recurrence occurred.

CONCLUSION:

Our report showed that the LESS approach in the treatment of early EC can be a safe and reliable technique in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes.

Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecologic oncology: An update

The preferred surgical approach for many gynecologic oncology procedures is now laparoscopy. Reduced morbidity, shorter hospitalization and a more rapid recovery have been associated with minimally invasive surgical approaches when compared to laparotomy. Incisional morbidity, including vascular and viscous injury, postoperative hernia, infection, and pain remain significant concerns. Use of fewer and smaller incisions during laparoscopy may be expected to further minimize these risks. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), or single incision laparoscopy, describes the use of one small skin incision to complete laparoscopic surgical procedures. Recent advances in instrumentation have allowed increasingly complex procedures in gynecologic cancer patients to be completed. This review will serve as an update in regards to implementation of LESS in gynecologic oncology. Technical challenges encountered during performance of LESS as well as strategies to overcome these challenges will be discussed.

The Feasibility and Safety of Adopting Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery into Gynecologic Oncology Practice

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the complications associated with single-incision laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology surgery.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort (Canadian Task Force classification II-3).

SETTING

A single academic institution.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifteen consecutive patients undergoing single-incision laparoscopy with suspected gynecologic oncology conditions.

INTERVENTIONS

Single-incision laparoscopy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients underwent single-incision laparoscopy. The mean age was 55.3 ± 13.1 years. For procedures completed via single-incision laparoscopy (102/115 [88.7%]), the mean operative time was 130.7 ± 55.5 minutes. The average blood loss was 63 ± 111 mL. The conversion to open rate was 13 of 115 (12.17%). The conversion rate of the 55 patients with benign conditions was lower (2/55 [3.64%]) compared with the 60 patients with malignant conditions (11/60 [18.33%]). The hernia rate was 2 of 115 (1.80%), 1 of which was a recurrent hernia. The median time for follow-up was 30 days (range, 5-653 days).

CONCLUSION

Single-incision laparoscopy provides a feasible, safe, and promising minimally invasive modality for treating gynecologic oncology patients.

Staging lymphadenectomy in patients with localized high risk prostate cancer: comparison of the laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) technique with conventional multiport laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

In patients with localized high-risk prostate cancer awaiting radiation therapy, pelvic lymphadenectomy (PL) is a reliable minimally invasive staging procedure. We compared outcomes after laparoendoscopic single site PL (LESSPL) with those after conventional multiport laparoscopic PL (MLPL).

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was carried out at the authors' center. For LESSPL the reusable X-Cone single port was combined with straight and prebent laparoscopic instruments and an additional 3 mm needlescopic grasper. MLPL was performed via four trocars of different sizes using standard laparoscopic instruments.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent either LESSPL (n = 20) or MLPL (n = 97) between January 2008 and July 2013, were included in the study. Demographic data were comparable between groups. Patients in the LESSPL group tended to be older and had a significantly higher ASA-score. The mean operating time was 172.4 ± 34.1 min for LESSPL and 116.6 ± 40.1 min for MLPL (P < .001). During LESSPL, no conversion to MLPL was necessary. An average of 12 lymph nodes per patient was retrieved, with no significant difference between study groups. Postoperative pain scores were similar between groups. The hospital stay was 2.3 ± 0.7 days after LESSPL and 3.1 ± 1.2 days after MLPL (P = .01). Two days postoperatively, significantly more patients after LESSPL than after MLPL recovered their normal physical activity (P < .001). Six months postoperatively, no complications were registered in the LESSPL group and cosmetic results were excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, shorter hospitalization and quicker postoperative recovery were major benefits of LESSPL over MLPL. In patients with localized prostate cancer, staging LESS pelvic lymphadenectomy may be a safe alternative to conventional multiport laparoscopy.