Robotic surgery in gynaecology and gynaecological oncology: Program initiation and operative outcomes at the Royal Adelaide Hospital

Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy in morbidly obese women for endometrial cancer

Surgery is the mainstay treatment for endometrial cancer and complex atypical endometrial hyperplasia. These conditions are more common in the obese women and as such these patients pose additional risks and challenges to surgery. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) is preferred over open surgery in obese patients as it reduces surgical morbidity. However, more recently, robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) has been used in morbidly obese patients to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopy. To compare the surgical outcomes of morbidly obese patients undergoing LH or RH for endometrial cancer or complex atypical hyperplasia. A retrospective analysis of morbidly obese patients (BMI > 40 kg/m²) who underwent LH or RH for endometrial cancer or complex atypical hyperplasia at the Chris O'Brien Lifehouse Gynaecological Oncology Unit from 2015 to 2019 was performed. Data was collected from the prospectively maintained gynaecology oncology database and descriptive analysis was performed. 33 (51.6%) underwent LH and 31 (48.4%) had RH. More LHs were performed 2015-2017 period, whereas there were more RHs performed in 2018-2019 period (p = 0.01). The difference between theatre time use and operating time for LH surgery compared to RH was significantly shorter (45.7 for LH versus 61.9 min for RH, p = 0.009). RH was performed more commonly when BMI was > 50 kg/m² (p = 0.02). There has been an increase in the use of RH in morbidly obese patients, particularly for women with a BMI > 50 kg/m².

Outcomes in women undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy at a tertiary hospital in Western Australia

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH) is associated with improved outcomes compared to open surgery in patients with endometrial cancer but data are conflicting when comparing RALH to conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH). In October 2014, a RALH program was established in Perth, Western Australia.

AIM

To compare outcomes in patients undergoing RALH with a matched cohort undergoing TLH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective matched cohort study compared outcomes in 45 patients who underwent RALH with 45 controls who were patients treated with TLH.

RESULTS

Mean operating time was longer in the RALH group compared to controls (75.42 min vs 53.18 min, mean difference 22.24 min, P < 0.001, 95% Cl, 11.07-33.42). No differences were observed in mean pain scores (RALH 1.47 vs TLH 1.84 P = 0.31), mean parenteral and oral opioid use (RALH 14.3 mg and 42.4 mg vs TLH 17.5 mg and 52.57 mg, P = 0.42 and 0.42, respectively), and mean length of stay (RALH 1.51 vs TLH 1.67 days, P = 0.49). Two patients in the RALH group and one patient in the TLH group sustained iatrogenic bladder injuries (P = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

The establishment of the RALH program at our institution appeared to be associated with equivalent morbidity, post-operative pain, opioid use and length of stay compared to conventional laparoscopy. A surgical learning curve for RALH was observed. Well-designed prospective studies are needed to further evaluate short- and long-term patient function, morbidity, quality of life and oncologic outcomes.

Low COST surgery setting for one-operational port laparoscopic hysterectomy surgery with ordinary laparoscopic instruments: preliminary results

Background

Hysterectomy dates back to 120BC and is the second most commonly performed gynecological surgery in the world. Cosmetic demands and the necessity of rapid return to work have contributed to the minimally invasive laparoscopic approach for hysterectomy. The majority of reports describe the use of three or four incisions to perform the surgery (two or three for manipulation and one for optics).

Methods

This work describes our experience with using only two ports for 11 patients who underwent video-laparoscopic hysterectomy surgery. One port was used for the optical system, and the second was used for manipulation. Early and late surgery complications, as well as the time to return to work and daily activities, were assessed.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 41.4 years old (range 16 to 52 years) and the mean uterine weight was 133.54 g, ranging from 35 g and 291 g. The operative time ranged from 30 to 60 minutes (average 46.4 minutes) and the hospital stay ranged between 24 and 48 hrs. No intraoperative complications occurred, and no early or late postoperative complications were recorded. Patients reported minimal pain during the first 24–48 hrs in the hospital. Patients returned to their daily activities within seven days after surgery. Clinical care follow-up continued until the 40th postoperative day.

Conclusion

The laparoscopic hysterectomy technique with a single port for manipulation is a feasible procedure when the uterine weight is not greater than 400 mg with little postoperative pain. The patients had an early return-to-work and daily activities and a better cosmetic outcome. These preliminary data led us to make the one-operative port laparoscopic hysterectomy the procedure of choice for patients with a low uterine weight.

Vaginal Vault Dehiscence After Robotic Hysterectomy for Gynecologic Cancers: Search for Risk Factors and Literature Review

Introduction

Vaginal vault dehiscence following robotic-assisted hysterectomy for gynecologic cancer may be attributed to surgical techniques and postoperative therapeutic interventions. We searched for risk factors in patients with gynecologic cancers and complemented this with a literature review.

Methods

Evaluation of prospectively gathered information on all consecutive robotic surgeries for gynecologic cancers was performed in a tertiary academic cancer center between December 2007 and March 2012. The literature was reviewed for articles relevant to “gynecologic oncology” and “robotics” with “vaginal cuff dehiscence” in the English and French languages. Respective authors were contacted to complete relevant information.

Results

Seven dehiscences were identified of 441 cases with established gynecologic cancers. The closures in these 7 were performed using interrupted 1-Vicryl (Ethicon Inc) (3/167; 1.8%), combination of interrupted 1-Vicryl and 1-Biosyn (Covidien Inc) (3/156, 1.9%), and V-Loc (Covidien Inc) (1/118, 0.8%) sutures. Associated risk factors included adjuvant chemotherapy and/or brachytherapy, early resumption of sexual activity, and low body mass index (mean, 23 ± 3.23 kg/m2). Dehiscences occurred regardless of suturing by staff or trainees. Review of operative videos did not reveal a detectable etiologic factor, such as excessive cautery damage to the vaginal cuff or shallow tissue sutured. All 7 colporrhexis repairs were performed through a vaginal approach without the need of laparoscopy or laparotomy.

Conclusions

Postoperative chemotherapy, brachytherapy, and early resumption of sexual activities are risk factors for vaginal vault dehiscence. Surgical technique, particularly the use of delayed absorbable sutures, deserves further evaluation