Clinical and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Women With Cervical Cancer: Experience at a Referral Cancer Center

The Utilization of e-Health in Lymphedema Care: A Narrative Review

Background: Electronic health (e-Health), refers to technologies that can be utilized to enhance patient care as well as collect and share health information. e-Health comprises several umbrella terms, including telehealth, mobile health, e-Health, wearables, and artificial intelligence. The types of e-Health technologies being utilized in lymphedema (LE) care are unknown. Method: In this narrative review, a search of published research on the utilization of e-Health technologies in LE-related care was conducted. Results: Five different types of e-Health modalities were found (robotics, artificial intelligence, electronic medical records, smart wearable devices, and instructive online information) spanning 14 use cases and 4 phases of care (preventative, diagnostic, assessment, and treatment phases). Broad e-Health utilization examples were found including robotic-assisted surgery to reduce the likelihood of LE after lymphadenectomy, machine learning to predict patients at risk of filarial-related LE, and a novel wearable device prototype designed to provide lymphatic drainage. Conclusions: e-Health has reported merit in the prevention, diagnoses, assessment, and treatment of LE with utilization demonstrating cutting edge applicability of e-Health for achieving optimal patient care and outcomes. As technology continues to advance, additional research into the utilization of e-Health in LE care is warranted.

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.

Outcomes associated with different surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of five different approaches to cervical cancer surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for comparative studies on different radical hysterectomy types for cervical cancer in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. All included observational studies used survival analyses to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing different radical hysterectomy types. All studies were assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale with scores of at least seven points. We extracted the relevant data and conducted a network meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes among five surgical approaches.

RESULTS

Thirty studies (n = 11 353) were included. Robotic surgery had the lowest blood loss volume and hospitalization duration; open surgery had the shortest operative time. Vaginal assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with the highest number of resected lymph nodes and lowest rate of perioperative complications. Survival outcomes and tumor recurrence outcomes were similar among the approaches.

CONCLUSION

The current approaches to cervical cancer surgery have comparable efficacies.

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the importance of avoiding cancer cell spillage for early-stage cervical cancer: a narrative review

Radical hysterectomy is a standard surgery to treat early-stage uterine cervical cancer. The Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial has shown that patients receiving minimally invasive radical hysterectomy have a poorer prognosis than those receiving open radical hysterectomy; however, the reason for this remains unclear. The LACC trial had 2 concerns: the learning curve and the procedural effects. Appropriate management of the learning curve effect, including surgeons' skills, is required to correctly interpret the result of surgical randomized controlled trials. Whether the LACC trial managed the learning curve effect remains controversial, based on the surgeons' inclusion criteria and the distribution of institutions with recurrent cases. An appropriate surgical procedure is also needed, and avoiding intraoperative cancer cell spillage plays an important role during cancer surgery. Cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive surgery to treat cervical cancer is caused by several factors, including 1) exposure of tumor, 2) the use of a uterine manipulator, and 3) direct handling of the uterine cervix. Unfortunately, these issues were not addressed by the LACC trial. We evaluated the results of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy while avoiding cancer cell spillage for early-stage cervical cancer. Our findings show that avoiding cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive radical hysterectomy may ensure an equivalent oncologic outcome, comparable to that of open radical hysterectomy. Therefore, evaluating the importance of avoiding cancer cell spillage during minimally invasive surgery with a better control of the learning curve and procedural effects is needed.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis after minimally invasive surgery versus open radical hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients undergoing minimally invasive or open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

METHODS

The MEDLINE (accessed through Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Clinical Trials, and Scopus databases were searched for articles published from inception up to April 2022. Articles published in English were considered. The included studies reported on patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage IA-IIA squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and/or adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix who underwent primary surgery. Studies had to report at least one case of peritoneal carcinomatosis as a recurrence pattern, and only studies comparing recurrence after minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery were considered. Variables of interest were manually extracted into a standardized electronic database. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022325068).

RESULTS

The initial search identified 518 articles. After the removal of the duplicate entries from the initial search, two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the remaining 453 articles. Finally, 78 articles were selected for full-text evaluation; 22 articles (a total of 7626 patients) were included in the analysis-one randomized controlled trial and 21 observational retrospective studies. The most common histology was squamous cell carcinoma in 60.9%, and the tumor size was <4 cm in 92.8% of patients. Peritoneal carcinomatosis pattern represented 22.2% of recurrences in the minimally invasive surgery approach versus 8.8% in open surgery, accounting for 15.5% of all recurrences. The meta-analysis of observational studies revealed a statistically significant higher risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis after minimally invasive surgery (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.74, p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis after radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with open surgery.

New Insights on the Minimal-Invasive Therapy of Cervical Cancer

Objective: The ideal management of early-stage cervical cancer has become the subject of a global controversy following the publication of a prospective study in 2018 that reported a worse oncologic outcome when comparing the minimally invasive approach to the laparotomy approach. The discussion involves both prospective and retrospective data and general and theoretical considerations. We wanted to look at the data available today and review the different opinions, offering an impartial assessment of the ongoing controversy. Methods: The available literature was reviewed, focusing on articles arguing for and against minimally invasive surgery in cervical cancer. We tried to avoid any fundamental bias, as is often evident in the available reviews on the subject. Literature both before and after the 2018 publication was taken into consideration. Results: As is usual in discussions of concepts, the literature that is now available provides arguments for both sides of this challenging issue, depending on one’s standpoint. Science-related writing is not immune to trends. There is a curious shift in opinion seen before and after 2018. One must question whether there was a prejudice in favor of minimally invasive surgery prior to the publication of the NEJM articles and a bias against it afterward. Conclusion: Whether further minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer is invariable is tied to the more pressing question of how this surgery will have to be centralized in the future. Unless these questions are linked, no satisfactory solution can be found.

A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter

Purpose

To explore the possible factors that contributed to the poor performance of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus abdominal surgery regarding progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in cervical cancer.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched (January 2000 to April 2021). Study selection was performed by two researchers to include studies reported oncological safety. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined using random-effect model. Subgroup analyses were stratified by characteristics of disease, publication, study design and treatment center.

Results

Sixty-one studies with 63,369 patients (MIS 26956 and ARH 36,049) were included. The overall-analysis revealed a higher risk of recurrence (HR 1.209; 95% CI 1.102–1.327) and death (HR 1.124; 95% CI 1.013–1.248) after MIS versus ARH expect in FIGO IB1 (FIGO 2009 staging) patients with tumor size less than 2 cm. However, subgroup analyses showed comparable PFS/DFS and OS in studies published before the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, published in European journals, conducted in a single center, performed in centers in Europe and in centers with high sample volume or high MIS sample volume.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight possible factors that associated with inferior survival after MIS in cervical cancer including publication characteristics, center-geography and sample volume. Center associated factors were needed to be taken into consideration when evaluating complex surgical procedures like radical hysterectomy.

Oncologic Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Using the No-Look No-Touch Technique for Early Stage Cervical Cancer: A Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis

Simple Summary

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is contraindicated in early stage cervical cancer cases because of poor prognosis. The no-look no-touch technique (NLNT) eliminates intraoperative tumor spillage and may improve survival outcomes. We evaluated oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy performed using NLNT. We compared the outcomes of abdominal radical hysterectomy and NLNT using inverse probability of treatment weighting. We found no significant differences in disease-free survival between the groups, even in patients with tumor sizes ≥ 2 cm. We also studied NLNT’s non-inferiority to abdominal radical hysterectomy by evaluating heterogeneity between the results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial and those of our study. We did not observe significant heterogeneity, although there was a trend toward a lower hazard ratio in our study compared with the non-inferiority margin in the LACC trial. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using NLNT is a plausible alternative surgical treatment for early stage cervical cancer.

Abstract

We evaluated oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using the no-look no-touch technique (NLNT). We analyzed patients with early stage (IA2, IB1, and IIA1, FIGO2008) cervical cancer treated between December 2014 and December 2019. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). We compared the outcomes of the abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) and NLNT groups using a Cox model with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), according to propensity scores. We also evaluated NLNT’s non-inferiority to ARH using an evaluation of heterogeneity between the results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial and our study. ARH and NLNT were performed in 118 and 113 patients, respectively. The median follow-up duration was 3.2 years. After IPTW adjustment, the 3-year DFS rates (NLNT 92.4%; ARH 94.0%) and overall survival rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Furthermore, the 3-year DFS rates for patients with tumor sizes ≥ 2 cm in the NLNT (85.0%) and ARH (90.3%) groups did not differ significantly. No significant heterogeneity was observed between the LACC trial and our study (I² = 60.5%, p = 0.111), although there was a trend toward a lower hazard ratio in our study. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using NLNT provides a favorable prognosis for early stage cervical cancer.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery for Endometrial and Cervical Cancer

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has many benefits, in the form of reduced postoperative morbidity, improved recovery and reduced inpatient stay. It is imperative, however, when new techniques are adopted, in the context of treating oncology patients, that the oncological efficacy and safety are established rigorously rather than assumed based on first principles. Here we have attempted to provide a comprehensive review of all the contentious and topical themes surrounding the use of MIS in the treatment of endometrial and cervix cancer following a thorough review of the literature. On the topic of endometrial cancer, we cover the role of laparoscopy in both early and advanced disease, together with the role and unique benefits of robotic surgery. The surgical challenge of patients with a raised body mass index and the frail and elderly are discussed and finally the role of sentinel lymph node assessment. For cervical cancer, the role of MIS for staging and primary treatment is covered, together with the interesting and highly specialist topics of fertility-sparing treatment, ovarian transposition and the live birth rate associated with this. We end with a discussion on the evidence surrounding the role of adjuvant hysterectomy following radical chemoradiation and pelvic exenteration for recurrent cervical cancer. MIS is the standard of care for endometrial cancer. The future of MIS for cervix cancer, however, remains uncertain. Current recommendations, based on the available evidence, are that the open approach should be considered the gold standard for the surgical management of early cervical cancer and that MIS should only be adopted in the context of research. Careful counselling of patients on the current evidence, discussing in detail the risks and benefits to enable them to make an informed choice, remains paramount.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Data Sources

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

Study Selection

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

Data Extraction and Synthesis

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Radical Hysterectomy (RRH) for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Experience at a Referral Cancer Center

PURPOSE

To evaluate oncologic outcomes of early stage cervical cancer patients who underwent robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) in a referral center, a retrospective analysis was performed.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2018, medical records of stage IA2-IIA1 cervical cancer patients, who underwent radical hysterectomy at our institute, were retrospectively reviewed. We focused our analysis on those who underwent RRH.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients were included in the final analysis. Median follow up was 52 months. At last follow-up, 188 (94.9%) women were disease-free, 9 (4.5%) had died, and 1 (0.5%) was alive with recurrent disease. At 4.5 years, PFS was 93.1% (SE ± 2.1) and OS was 95.1% (SE ± 1.8). Stratified by tumor size, PFS for tumor < 2 cm versus tumor ≥ 2 cm was statistically different (96.8% ± 2.3 and 87.9% ± 4.1 respectively, p = 0.01), as well as OS (100% and 89.8% ± 40 respectively, p = 0.01).Stratified by evidence of tumor at time of robotic surgery, PFS was statistically different in women with no residual tumor after conisation versus those with residual disease (100% ± 2.5 and 90.8% ± 2.8 respectively, p = 0.04). A recurrence occurred in 11 patients (5.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results, we could speculate that robotic approach, along with some technical precautions to avoid spillage, might be safe as primary treatment of early-stage cervical cancer, especially for tumor < 2 cm and in case of no evidence of disease at time of radical hysterectomy after previous conisation.

Survival After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients remains controversial. We evaluated the survival outcomes of cervical cancer patients who underwent different surgical approaches.

Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to February 2020, using the MESH terms “minimally invasive surgical procedures” and “Uterine Cervical Neoplasms.” Included were all original comparative studies and trials both published and unpublished in English that were related to minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for cervical cancer patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) 2009 stage < IIB. Begg's and Egger's regressions were used to evaluate publication bias.

Results: This meta-analysis included 28 studies enrolling 18,961 patients with cervical cancer. The overall analyses indicated that cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage < IIB who underwent minimally invasive surgery had a lower rate of OS (HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.06–1.92, P = 0.019) and DFS (HR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.21–1.85, P < 0.001) than those who underwent open surgery. Moreover, minimally invasive surgery could lower OS (HR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.50–3.52, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.36–2.76, P < 0.001) of cervical cancer patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 compared to open surgery. However, there were no significant differences in OS (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.65–1.76, P = 0.801) and DFS (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.65–2.19, P = 0.559) in patients with tumors < 2 cm between the two groups.

Conclusions: Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with poor survival outcomes compared to open surgery. Patients with FIGO 2009 stage ≤ IB1 cervical cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery have lower OS and DFS rates than those who underwent open surgery. Therefore, open surgery should be performed for cervical cancer patients. However, patients with tumors < 2 cm might take the most advantage of minimally invasive surgery without increasing poor prognosis. There are some limitations in the meta-analysis, which needs further high-quality multicenter studies to confirm and update our findings.

Usability assessment of Versius, a new robot-assisted surgical device for use in minimal access surgery

OBJECTIVES

Versius is a teleoperated surgical robotic system intended for use in minimal access surgery. This study aimed to validate the safety and effectiveness of the Versius user interface in the hands of trained users and identify and address the causes of any user errors.

DESIGN

Surgical teams completed a commercially representative training program over 3.5 days. After training was completed, the usability-related aspects of the system were assessed.

SETTING

A simulated operating room using a cadaveric model.

PARTICIPANTS

Surgical teams consisting of a lead surgeon, assistant surgeon, scrub nurse and circulating nurse.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Usability-related aspects of the system were assessed through the completion of critical and non-critical tasks. A critical task was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration's definition, as a user task which, if performed incorrectly or not performed at all, would or could cause serious harm to the patient or user, where harm is defined to include compromised medical care.

RESULTS

In total, 17 surgical teams participated in the study and all were experienced in laparoscopic surgery. The number of robotic surgeries performed by the participants per month ranged from 0 to 100. Surgical specialties were similarly represented from obstetrics and gynecology, colorectal, urology and upper gastrointestinal. No critical task failures were observed. Of all the tasks completed, 98% were recorded as a pass or a pass with difficulty.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that in a simulated clinical setting, Versius can be safely used by both laparoscopically and robotically trained healthcare professionals. These results support the progression to assessment of Versius in preclinical studies.

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.

Survival outcomes of single-port access laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Emerging data from the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial (NCT00614211) suggested that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer is correlated with worse survival outcomes than open surgery. This finding could be attributed to the different learning curves for laparoscopic surgery among surgeons. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and survival outcomes of single-port access (SPA) laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for treating early cervical cancer.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent SPA LRH between 2009 and 2018 performed by a single surgeon with expertise in SPA laparoscopy using conventional instrumentation and a homemade glove port system.

RESULTS

Type C (93.2%) and B (6.8%) radical hysterectomy were performed in 59 women with cervical cancer classified as IA (3.4%), IB (94.9%), and IIA (1.7%). Forty-one patients (69.5%) had squamous cell carcinoma and 32 patients (52.5%) had tumors < 2 cm. The median operative time was 235 (125-382) minutes. There were no perioperative complications or cases of conversion to open surgery. Postoperative complications, including chylous ascites, low hemoglobin, lymphedema, and vault dehiscence, were observed in 5 patients (8.5%). Median follow-up time was 3.1 (0.6-8.6) years and 3 patients experienced recurrence (1 local and 2 distant failures). Five-year disease-free survival was 94.9% (56/59) and the 5-year overall survival rate was 98.3% (58/59).

CONCLUSIONS

SPA LRH is feasible and safe for patients with early-stage cervical cancer when performed by experienced surgeons without compromising the radicality and oncologic outcomes.

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.

Using end-user feedback to optimize the design of the Versius Surgical System, a new robot-assisted device for use in minimal access surgery

Background

Robot-assisted minimal access surgery (MAS) reduces blood loss, recovery time, intraoperative and postoperative complications and pain. However, uptake of robotic MAS remains low, suggesting there are barriers to its use. To overcome these barriers, a new surgical robot system, Versius, was developed based on the needs and feedback of surgeons and surgical teams.

Methods

The surgical robot prototype was designed based on observations in the operating room (OR) and previous interviews with surgeons. Formative studies with surgeons and surgical teams were used to refine the prototype design, resulting in modifications to all components, including the arms, instruments, handgrips and surgeon console. Proof-of-concept cadaver studies were used to further optimize its design by assessing its usability during surgical procedures.

Results

Feedback led to the development of a novel, mobile design with independent arm carts and surgical console, linked by supported serial or parallel connections, providing maximum flexibility in the OR. Instrument tips were developed based on surgeons’ preferred designs and wristed at the tip providing seven degrees of freedom within the patient. Multiple handgrip designs were assessed by surgeons; of these, a ‘game controller’ design was rated most popular and usable. An open surgical console design allowing multiple working positions was rated highest by surgeons and the surgical teams.

Conclusions

This surgical robot system has been developed using feedback from end users throughout the design process and aims to minimize barriers to robotic MAS uptake. Additionally, these studies demonstrate system success in the surgical procedures it was designed for. The studies reported here, and further studies of the Versius Surgical System, are intended to align with IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) Framework guidance.

Survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: A 9-year study

BACKGROUND

Recently, the results of a RCT have raised concerns on the management of cervical cancer through a minimally invasive approach. This study reports on the outcomes of patients with early stage cervical cancer submitted to robotics.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients with an early cervical cancer treated with robotics at a single Institution over a 9-year period.

RESULTS

A total of 91 women were managed; 39 (41.1%) had cervical adenocarcinoma. One (1.1%) conversion to laparotomy and one (1.1%) intraoperative complication occurred. Five (5.5%) patients experienced postoperative (>G2) complications; 24 (26.4%) patients required further adjuvant therapies. After a median follow-up of 40.7 (3.8-96.6) months, the DFS and OS were 90.4 (95%CI 85.3-95.6)% and 94.5 (95%CI 91.8-97.2)%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the available literature, the survival outcomes of this series of RRH for ECC are not inferior to what recorded in the past by an open approach.

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.

Oncologic and Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE

In view of the recent controversy concerning the use of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy as primary treatment for early stage cervical cancer, this study compared the survival and perioperative outcomes in a cohort of patients who underwent radical hysterectomy either by laparotomy or by robotics.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared all consecutive patients with early stage cervical cancer since the beginning of the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at the Jewish General Hospital in 2003, who underwent robotic radical hysterectomy (n = 74) with a cohort of all consecutive patients from the immediate past who underwent open radical hysterectomy (n = 24) for early stage cervical cancer. All patients were treated at the Jewish General Hospital in Montréal (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2).

RESULTS

The median follow-up time for the robotic group was 46 months. During that time, 7% and 17% of patients in the robotic group and the laparotomy group had disease recurrence, respectively (P = 0.12). Cox multivariate regression showed no statistically significant effect of surgical approach on overall survival (hazard ratio 1.50, P = 0.63) or on progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.29, P = 0.07). Patients in the robotic cohort had significantly shorter median hospital stays (1 day vs. 7 days, P < 0.001), and their overall incidence of postoperative complications was lower (13% vs. 50%, P < 0.001). Median estimated blood loss for robotics was also significantly lower (82 mL vs. 528 mL, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Based on the data on a limited number of patients in a Canadian context, robotic radical hysterectomy did not lead to worse oncologic outcomes and was associated with improved short-term surgical outcomes. One might consider the evaluation of more personalized surgical decision making.

The analysis of the long-term outcomes in elderly women treated for locally advanced cervical cancer

Purpose

Locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) should be treated with a combination of external irradiation and brachytherapy with concurrent chemotherapy. However, as cervical carcinoma cells can disperse by way of the lymphatic system to either pelvic or para-aortic nodes, planning the extent of radiation requires precise information about the spread of the disease to the lymph nodes, especially to the para-aortic area.

Material and methods

All of the 75 women included in our study underwent chemoradiotherapy, which started with brachytherapy. Out of them, 54 have undergone radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy followed by chemoradiation. We have retrospectively analyzed the 5-year overall survival (OS) rates relative to the lymph node involvement, the type of lymphadenectomy performed (pelvic, para-aortic, or both), the size of the tumor (> or < 4 cm), the histological type, grading, and the age of patients.

Results

We observed significant differences in the OS rates relative to the age of the patients with LACC. We noted significant differences in the OS rates related to para-aortic lymphadenectomy and presence of lymph node metastases.

Conclusions

Para-aortic lymphadenectomy seems to have a positive influence on long-term outcomes in the LACC patients, and elderly patients may benefit more from applied therapy.

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.

Anaesthetic issues in robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery

Over the past decade there has been an exponential increase in the number of robotic-assisted surgical procedures performed in Australia and internationally. Despite this growth, there are no level I or II studies examining the anaesthetic implications of these procedures. Available observational studies provide insight into the significant challenges for the anaesthetist. Most anaesthetic considerations overlap with those of non-robotic surgery. However, issues with limited patient access and extremes of positioning resulting in physiological disturbances and risk of injury are consistently demonstrated concerns specific to robotic-assisted procedures.

Surgical Innovation in Sarcoma Surgery

The field of orthopaedic oncology relies on innovative techniques to resect and reconstruct a bone or soft tissue tumour. This article reviews some of the most recent and important innovations in the field, including biological and implant reconstructions, together with computer-assisted surgery. It also looks at innovations in other fields of oncology to assess the impact and change that has been required by surgeons; topics including surgical margins, preoperative radiotherapy and future advances are discussed.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Outside the operating room: How a robotics program changed resource utilization on the inpatient Ward

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the changes in the composition of the gynecologic oncology inpatient ward following the implementation of a robotic surgery program and its impact on inpatient resource utilization and costs.

METHODS

Retrospective review of the medical charts of patients admitted onto the gynecologic oncology ward the year prior to and five years after the implementation of robotics. The following variables were collected: patient characteristics, hospitalization details (reason for admission and length of hospital stay), and resource utilization (number of hospitalization days, consultations, and imaging).

RESULTS

Following the introduction of robotic surgery, there were more admissions for elective surgery yet these accounted for only 21% of the inpatient ward in terms of number of hospital days, compared to 36% prior to the robotic program. This coincided with a sharp increase in the overall number of patients operated on by a minimally invasive approach (15% to 76%, p<0.0001). The cost per surgical admission on the inpatient ward decreased by 59% ($9827 vs. $4058) in the robotics era. The robotics program contributed to a ward with higher proportion of patients with complex comorbidities (Charlson≥5: RR 1.06), Stage IV disease (RR 1.30), and recurrent disease (RR 1.99).

CONCLUSION

Introduction of robotic surgery allowed for more patients to be treated surgically while simultaneously decreasing inpatient resource use. With more patients with non-surgical oncological issues and greater medical complexity, the gynecologic oncology ward functions more like a medical rather than surgical ward after the introduction of robotics, which has implications for hospital-wide resource planning.

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.

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

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