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

Comparison of survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomies for early-stage cervical cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate survival outcomes between RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

Studies comparing between RRH and LRH published up to November 2022 were systemically searched in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of the published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently extracted data. Studies with information on recurrence and death after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy were also included. The extracted data were analyzed using the Stata MP software package version 17.0.

RESULTS

Twenty eligible clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios of RRH for recurrence and death were 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.91-1.55; p=0.613; I²=0.0%) and 0.96 (95% CI=0.65-1.42; p=0.558; I²=0.0%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, the quality of study methodology, study size, country where the study was conducted, and publication year were not associated with survival outcomes between RRH and LRH.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that the survival outcomes are comparable between RRH and LRH.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Identifier: CRD42023387916.

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.

Urological Complications in Radical Surgery for Cervical Cancer: A Comparative Meta-Analysis before and after LACC Trial

BACKGROUND

After the LACC trial publication in 2018, the minimally invasive approach (MIS) has severely decreased in favor of open surgery: MIS radical hysterectomy was associated with worse oncological outcomes than open surgery, but urological complications were never extensively explored in pre- versus post-LACC eras, even if they had a great impact on post-operative QoL. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare functional and organic urological complication rates before and after LACC trial.

METHODS

An independent search of the literature was conducted 4 years before and after the LACC trial and 50 studies were included.

RESULTS

The overall rate of urologic complications was higher in pre-LACC studies while no differences were found for organic urological complications. Conversely, the overall risk of dysfunctional urological complications showed a higher rate in the pre-LACC era. This is probably related to a sudden shift to open surgery, with potential lower thermal damage to the urinary tract autonomic nervous fibers.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that the incidence of urological complications in radical cervical cancer surgery was higher before the LACC trial, potentially due to the shift to open surgery. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to shed light on the connection between minimally invasive surgery and urological damage.

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.

A Comparative Analysis of Robotic Single-Site Surgery and Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery as Therapeutic Options for Stage IB1 Cervical Squamous Carcinoma

Purpose

To compare perioperative outcomes between robotic single-site surgical technique and conventional laparoendoscopic single-site surgical technique.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study involving 67 patients who received robotic single-site surgery or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for the treatment of stage IB1 cervical squamous carcinoma. The robotic single-site radical hysterectomy technique combined with pelvic lymph node dissections were performed in 32 patients while the laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy technique combined with pelvic lymph node dissections were performed in 35 patients.

Results

The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with stage IB1 cervical squamous carcinoma. The perioperative outcomes were mean age (51.63±8.32 years in the lymph node dissection (RSS group) and 53.14±8.14 years in the lymph node dissection (LESS group), p=0.453); BMIs (23.76±2.72 in the RSS group and 23.46±2.28 in the LESS group, p=0.629); shorter operative times (223.56±15.43 min in the RSS group and 248.61±20.89 min in the LESS group, p<0.01) and less estimated blood loss (217.25±16.77 mL in the RSS group and 294.74±24.00 mL in the LESS group, p<0.01). None of the study participants exhibited postoperative pain. There were no statistically significant differences in the length of hospital stay (p=0.865), perioperative complications (p=0.602), duration of closure and removal of catheter (p=0.518) as well as in pathological diagnoses between the two groups.

Conclusion

Robotic single-site surgery can be used in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer as it exhibits acceptable operative times and perioperative outcomes. This surgical technique is feasible and safe.

European Society of Gynaecological Oncology quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Optimizing and ensuring the quality of surgical care is essential to improve the management and outcome of patients with cervical cancer.To develop a list of quality indicators for surgical treatment of cervical cancer that can be used to audit and improve clinical practice.

METHODS

Quality indicators were developed using a four-step evaluation process that included a systematic literature search to identify potential quality indicators, in-person meetings of an ad hoc group of international experts, an internal validation process, and external review by a large panel of European clinicians and patient representatives.

RESULTS

Fifteen structural, process, and outcome indicators were selected. Using a structured format, each quality indicator has a description specifying what the indicator is measuring. Measurability specifications are also detailed to define how the indicator will be measured in practice. Each indicator has a target which gives practitioners and health administrators a quantitative basis for improving care and organizational processes.

DISCUSSION

Implementation of institutional quality assurance programs can improve quality of care, even in high-volume centers. This set of quality indicators from the European Society of Gynaecological Cancer may be a major instrument to improve the quality of surgical treatment of cervical cancer.

Operation for locally advanced cervical cancer after concurrent chemoradiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

This paper aimed to discuss the scope of operation and clinical effects for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) after concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 444 patients with stages IB2-IIB cervical cancer who were divided into two groups whether or not they received CCRT before radical operation in our institute from January 2013 to December 2016. Patients' characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The total efficiency (CR + PR) of the CCRT + operation group was 96.2%. Specifically, the CR rate was 9.1%, and the PR rate was 87.1%. The positive rates of cervical deep interstitial infiltration, lymphatic metastasis, and lymphangial infiltration of the operation group were significantly higher than those of the CCRT + operation group (P < 0.05). A total of 24 and 162 patients in the CCRT + operation group and the operation group, respectively, received adjuvant therapy (P < 0.05). The incidence rate of edema of the lower extremity, radiation enteritis, and radiocystitis after postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy in the operation group was significantly higher than that of the CCRT + operation group (P < 0.05). The 5-year survival rates and 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates of the CCRT + operation and operation groups were 79.3% versus 64.0% and 68.9% versus 45.2%, respectively (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive treatment that combines CCRT and radical operation to LACC achieves satisfying clinical effects without increasing the occurrence rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications. Moreover, such treatment can improve the 5-year PFS rate and OS rate.

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.

Concurrent Learning Curves of 3-Dimensional and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Using 2-Dimensional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy as a Benchmark: A Single Surgeon's Experience

Background

For early-stage cervical cancers, radical hysterectomy (RH) with pelvic lymphadenectomy has been the standard care. This study compared the learning curves and intra-, peri-, and post-operative outcomes for 3-dimensional laparoscopic RH (3D-LRH) and robotic-assisted (RA)-LRH by a surgeon highly skilled in 2-dimensional (2D)-LRH for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.

Material/Methods

Two hundred and thirty-nine patients with early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO stage: Ia2–IIa2) admitted to Shanghai Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Fudan University were recruited into this prospective study: 54, 85, and 100 patients underwent 2D-, 3D-, and RA-LRH, respectively and were followed up. Patients’ demographic, clinical, and operative information was retrieved and compared. CUSUM (cumulative summation) analysis using a benchmark derived from previously performed 2D-LRHs.

Results

Both 3D- and RA-LRH had a steep learning curve. 3D-LRH was superior to 2D- and RA-LRH in terms of significantly shorter operating time. For all approaches, the operating time was associated with the uterus size of the patient and was not affected by other parameters. All approaches of LRH yielded comparable radicality and operative results other than operative time.

Conclusions

Both 3D- and RA-LRH approaches had similar radicality, and intra-operative and post-operative complication rates, however, 3D-LRH had the shortest operating time and lowest amount of blood loss. After reaching proficiency, RA-LRH had comparable operating time with that of 2D-LRH, and might be even shorter in cases where surgeon has acquired more experience. In countries where labor costs are low; 3D-LRH might be preferable to 2D- and RA-LRH for early-stage cervical cancer.

Robotic Radical Hysterectomy Is Not Superior to Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Perioperative Urologic Complications: A Meta-Analysis of 23 Studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications after robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).

DATA SOURCES

We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to March 2019. Related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also checked.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two researchers independently performed data extraction. We selected comparative studies that reported perioperative urologic complications.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Twenty-three eligible clinical trials were included in this analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratio for the risk of any urologic complication after RRH compared with LRH was .91 (95% confidence interval [CI], .64-1.28; p = .585). The odds ratios for intraoperative and postoperative complications after RRH versus LRH were .86 (95% CI, .48-1.55; p = .637) and .94 (95% CI, .64-1.38; p = .767), respectively. In a secondary analysis study quality, study location, and the publication year were not associated with intraoperative or postoperative urologic complications.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that RRH is not superior to LRH in terms of perioperative urologic complications.

Safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy (RH) with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) for the treatment of cervical cancer using multivariate regressions.

METHODS

We designed a retrospective single-center study and consecutively collected patients with cervical cancer from February 2014 to October 2017. Data extraction was performed by two independent researchers. The surgical outcomes include operative time, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to a full diet, time to remove drainage tube, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients with cervical cancer were collected in our study including 92 patients who underwent RH and 60 patients who underwent LH. Both groups have similar characteristics. The RH group showed shorter operative time (Coe - 42.89; 95% CI - 74.39 to 11.39; P = 0.008) and more number of lymph nodes (Coe 6.06; 95% CI 2.46-9.66; p = 0.001) than the LH group. As for the postoperative parameters, the RH group showed shorter time to remove drainage tube (Coe - 0.89; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.15; p = 0.019) and length of hospital stay (Coe - 6.40; 95% CI - 10.19 to - 2.95; p = 0.001). No significant difference was found between the groups in estimated blood loss (Coe 34.64; 95% CI - 33.08 to 102.37; p = 0.314), time to first flatus (Coe 0.11; 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.61; p = 0.652), time to a full diet (Coe - 0.24; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.06, p = 0.118), and postoperative complication (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.35-1.98; p = 0.685).

CONCLUSION

The results from this study suggest that RH is safe and effective as LH but robotic surgery significantly contributed to the feasibility of alternative treatment options for cervical cancer patients.

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.

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.

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.

3D vision improves outcomes in early cervical cancer treated with laparoscopic type B radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the alterations on surgical outcomes after of the implementation of 3D laparoscopic technology for the surgical treatment of early-stage cervical carcinoma.

METHODS

Data of patients undergoing type B radical hysterectomy (with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy) and pelvic lymphadenectomy via 3D laparoscopy were compared with a historical cohort of patients undergoing type B radical hysterectomy via conventional laparoscopy. Complications (within 60 days) were graded per the Accordion severity system.

RESULTS

Data of 75 patients were studied: 15 (20%) and 60 (80%) patients undergoing surgery via 3D laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy, respectively. Baseline patient characteristics as well as pathologic findings were similar between groups (p&gt;0.1). Patients undergoing 3D laparoscopy experienced a trend toward shorter operative time than patients undergoing conventional laparoscopy (176.7 ± 74.6 vs 215.9 ± 61.6 minutes; p = 0.09). Similarly, patients undergoing 3D laparoscopic radical hysterectomy experienced shorter length of hospital stay (2 days, range 2-6, vs 4 days, range 3-11; p&lt;0.001) in comparison to patients in the control group, while no difference in estimated blood loss was observed (p = 0.88). No between-group difference in complication rate was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

3D technology is a safe and effective way to perform type B radical hysterectomy and pelvic node dissection in early-stage cervical cancer. Further large prospective studies are warranted in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of the introduction of 3D technology in comparison to robotic assisted surgery.

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.

Robotic Compartment-Based Radical Surgery in Early-Stage Cervical Cancer

A radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is the recommended treatment option in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Although various classifications were developed in order to define the resection margins of this operation, no clear standardization could be achieved both in the nomenclature and in the extent of the surgery. Total mesometrial resection (TMMR) is a novel procedure which aims to remove all components of the compartment formed by Müllerian duct in which female reproductive organs develop. TMMR differs from the conventional radical hysterectomy techniques in that its surgical philosophy, terminology, and partly resection borders are different. In this paper, a TMMR with therapeutic pelvic lymphadenectomy operation that we performed for the first time with robot-assisted laparoscopic (robotic) approach in an early-stage cervical cancer patient was presented. This procedure has already been described in open surgery by Michael Höckel and translated to the robotic surgery by Rainer Kimmig. Our report is the second paper, to our knowledge, to present the initial experience regarding robotic TMMR in the English literature.

Robotic surgery for early stage cervical cancer: Evolution and current trends

The management of early stage cervical cancer often includes surgery in the form of radical hysterectomy, radical trachelectomy, or radical parametrectomy. Surgical techniques have evolved to include minimal invasive approaches, and more recently, to include robotic assisted techniques. This review highlights the evolution of surgical management of early cervical cancer and specifically explores robotic assisted radical hysterectomy, radical trachelectomy, radical parametrectomy, and the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

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.