Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer

Open versus robot-assisted retroperitoneal tumors resection involving inferior vena cava, abdominal aorta, and renal hilum: a comparative study

INTRODUCTION

Surgery is currently the only effective treatment for retroperitoneal tumors that do not involve any specific organ. The use of robots for removing both benign and malignant retroperitoneal tumors is considered safe and feasible. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether robotic retroperitoneal tumor resection (RMBRs) is superior to open retroperitoneal malignant resection (OMBRs). This study compares the short-term outcomes of robotic excision of benign and malignant retroperitoneal tumors with open excision of the same-sized tumors.

METHODS

The study compared demographics and outcomes of patients who underwent robotic resection (n = 54) vs open resection (n = 54) of retroperitoneal tumors between March 2018 and December 2022. A 1:1 matching analysis was conducted to ensure a fair comparison.

RESULTS

The study found that RBMRs resulted in reduced operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBM), and postoperative hospital stay (PSH) when compared to OBMRs. Additionally, RBMRs reduced EBL, PHS, and OT for patients with malignant tumor involvement in major vessels. No significant differences were found in tumor size, blood transfusion rate, and morbidity rate between the RBMRs and OBMRs groups.

CONCLUSION

When comparing RMBRs to OMBRs, it was observed that RMBR was associated with lower (EBL), shorter postoperative hospital stays (PHS), and reduced operative time (OT) in a specific group of patients with both benign and malignant tumors.

Efficacy and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis

Introduction

Robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) is a newly developed minimally invasive surgery that has been suggested as a substitute for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). This meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) for cervical cancer.

Materials and methods

A systematic search was conducted in four databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL) for studies comparing the utilization of RRH and LRH in the treatment of cervical cancer. The search included articles published from the inception of the databases up until July 18, 2023. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess several surgical outcomes, including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, pelvic lymph nodes, positive surgical margin, total complications, one-year recurrence rate, one-year mortality, and one-year disease-free survival rate.

Results

Six studies were included for meta-analysis. In total, 234 patients were in the RRH group and 174 patients were in the LRH group. RRH had significantly longer operative time (MD=14.23,95% CI:5.27~23.20, P=0.002),shorter hospital stay (MD= -1.10,95% CI:-1.43~0.76, P <0.00001),more dissected pelvic lymph nodes(MD=0.89,95%CI:0.18~1.60, P =0.01) and less blood loss(WMD = -27.78,95%CI:-58.69 ~ -3.14, P=0.08, I2 = 80%) compared with LRH. No significant difference was observed between two groups regarding positive surgical margin (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.18~2.76, P=0.61), over complications (OR = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.46-1.28, P=0.31), one-year recurrence rate (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.03-1.15, P=0.13), one-year mortality rate (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.03-1.15, P=0.07) and disease-free survival at one year (OR = 1.92, 95% CI 0.32-11.50, P=0.48).

Conclusion

RRH is an increasingly popular surgical method known for its high level of security and efficiency. It has many benefits in comparison to LRH, such as decreased blood loss, a higher quantity of dissected pelvic lymph nodes, and a shorter duration of hospitalization. Further multicenter, randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up durations are necessary to conclusively determine the safety and efficacy of RRH, as no significant differences were observed in terms of positive surgical margin, postoperative complications, 1-year recurrence, 1-year mortality, and 1-year disease-free survival.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023446653.

Comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between different surgical approaches for overweight or obese cervical cancer patients

The purpose was to investigate the safety and advantages of different surgical approaches applied to overweight or obese cervical cancer patients by comparing their surgical and oncological outcomes. This is a retrospective cohort study. 382 patients with a body mass index of at least 24.0 kg/m2 and stage IB-IIA (The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, FIGO 2009) cervical cancer were enrolled, and then were divided into three groups: open radical hysterectomy (ORH) group, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) group, and robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) group according to the surgical approach. IBM SPSS version 25.0 was used to analyze data. There were 51 patients in ORH group, 225 patients in LRH group and 106 patients in RRH group. In the comparison of surgical outcomes, compared to LRH and ORH, RRH had the shortest operating time, the least estimated blood loss, the shortest postoperative hospital stay, and the shortest recovery time for bowel function (P < 0.05). In the comparison of postoperative complications, ORH has the highest rate of postoperative infection and wound complication compared to LRH and RRH (P < 0.05), and RRH has the highest proportion of urinary retention. After a median follow-up time of 61 months, there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups in terms of 5-year overall survival (OS) rate and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate, (P = 0.262, P = 0.453). In patients with overweight or obese cervical cancer, the long-term outcomes of the three surgical approaches were comparable, with RRH showing significant advantages over ORH and LRH in terms of surgical outcomes.

SUCCOR morbidity: complications in minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications in open and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

Data were collected from the SUCCOR database of 1272 patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), 2009) who underwent radical hysterectomy in Europe between January 2013 and December 2014. We reviewed the duration of the surgeries, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, intra-operative and post-operative complications. The inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years and histologic type (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma). Pelvic MRI confirming a tumor diameter ≤4 cm with no parametrial invasion and a pre-operative CT scan, MRI, or positron emission tomography CT demonstrating no extra-cervical metastatic disease were mandatory. Outcomes of interest were any grade >3 adverse events, intra-operative adverse events, post-operative adverse events, length of hospital stay, length of operation, and blood loss.

RESULTS

The study included 1156 patients, 633 (54%) in the open surgery group and 523 (46%) in the minimally invasive surgery group. Median age was 46 years (range 18-82), median body mass index 25 kg/m2 (range 15-68), and 1022 (88.3%) patients were considered to have an optimal performance status (ECOG Performance Status 0). The most common histologic tumor type was squamous carcinoma (n=794, 68.7%) and the most frequent FIGO staging was IB1 (n=510, 44.1%). In the minimally invasive surgery group the median duration of surgery was longer (240 vs 187 min, p<0.01), median estimated blood loss was lower (100 vs 300 mL, p<0.01), and median length of hospital stay was shorter (4 vs 7 days, p<0.01) compared with the abdominal surgery group. There was no difference in the overall incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications between the two groups. Regarding grade I complications, the incidence of vaginal bleeding (2.9% vs 0.6%, p<0.01) and vaginal cuff dehiscence was higher in the minimally invasive surgery group than in the open group (3.3% vs 0.5%, p<0.01). Regarding grade III post-operative complications, bladder dysfunction (1.3% vs 0.2%, p=0.046) and abdominal wall infection (1.1% vs 0%, p=0.018) were more common in the open surgery group than in the minimally invasive surgery group. Ureteral fistula was more frequent in the minimally invasive group than in the open surgery group (1.7% vs 0.5%, p=0.037).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that there was no significant difference in the overall incidence of intra-operative and post-operative complications between minimally invasive radical hysterectomy and the open approach.

Effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on postoperative wound infection in patients with cervical cancer: A meta-analysis

The objective of this research is to evaluate the risk of postoperative infection and other risks associated with robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). Recent studies on RRH versus LRH have not been conclusive for cervical carcinoma. Our group attempted to use meta-analyses to evaluate the effects of both RRH and LRH on postoperative outcomes in order to make sure that the best operative method was used to prevent wound infections. We looked up Cochrane Library and published databases for this research and found 594 findings. Articles were screened by title and abstract and then carefully examined for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction was performed independently by two researchers. Comparison studies were used to describe the incidence of wound complications after surgery. The publication bias was assessed using Egger regression correlation analysis. There were six trials eligible for inclusion, of which 491 RRH and 807 LRH. Depending on surgery for cervical carcinoma, it is true that there is a difference in the way that surgery affects the postoperative complications. Our analysis demonstrated that the use of robotic operation can decrease the amount of blood loss during operation as compared with routine laparoscopy (MD, -77.69; 95% CI, -132.08, -23.30; p = 0.005). However, there were no statistical differences in the incidence of postoperative wound infections (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.25, 1.19; p = 0.13) and intraoperative operative time (MD, 13.01; 95% CI, -41.38, 67.41; p = 0.64) among the two procedures. There was no statistically significant difference between these two groups of patients with severe postoperative complications. Unlike other research, the findings of this meta-analysis are not consistent with the findings of the present study, which suggest that robotic operations cannot lower the rate of postoperative wound infections. However, because of the limitations and the retrospective character of the trials covered, these findings should be interpreted with care and more extensive research is required.

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.

The incidence of postoperative symptomatic lymphocele after pelvic lymphadenectomy between abdominal and laparoscopic approach: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risks of symptomatic lymphocele after pelvic lymphadenectomy between the laparoscopic and abdominal approach in uterine cervical and endometrial cancer.

METHODS

We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane library through April 2020. We selected the comparative studies contained information on symptomatic lymphoceles in postoperative complications. All articles searched were independently reviewed and selected by two researchers. A meta-analysis was performed using the Stata MP version 16.0 software package.

RESULTS

A total of 33 eligible clinical trials were ultimately enrolled in this meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratios (OR) of the laparoscopic approach for the risk of symptomatic lymphoceles compared to the abdominal approach was 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-0.81, p = 0.022, I-squared = 0.0%]. The risk of postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles in the laparoscopic group tended to decrease over time in the cumulative meta-analysis. In the subgroup analysis, there was no evidence for an association between cancer type, quality of the study methodology, hysterectomy type, and postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles. However, in a recently published article, being overweight (body mass index ≥ 25) and studies conducted in oriental area were associated with a lower incidence of postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy was associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles than abdominal lymphadenectomy (PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42,020,187,165).

Retrospective Analysis of Cervical Cancer Treatment Outcomes: Ten Years of Experience with the Vaginal Assisted Radical Laparoscopic Hysterectomy VARLH

BACKGROUND

LACC trial demonstrated inferiority of laparoscopic approach for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. There are still limited data from retrospective trials regarding whether survival outcomes after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy are equivalent to those after open abdominal radical hysterectomy. In this study, we present results of combined vaginal radical laparoscopic hysterectomy in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study was carried out at the Department of Gynecology in Mathilden Hospital (Herford, Germany). Between January 2008 and April 2018, all the patients with invasive cervical cancer who underwent combined vaginal assisted radical laparoscopic hysterectomy (VARLH) without the use of any uterine manipulator were enrolled to the study.

RESULTS

A total number of 124 patients with diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer were enrolled in the study. All of the patients underwent minimally invasive surgery and were divided according to FIGO 2019: stage IA (25.9%), IB1 (25.0%), IB2-IIB (28.4%), and III/IV (20.7%). Overall, the mean age of the patients was 51.84 years. After a study collection, a median follow-up was 45.6 (range 23.7-76.5) months. The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates for early-stage cervical cancer were both 98%, and the 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 100% and 97%, respectively. We have not observed any recurrence in our study group of patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined VARLH can be considered a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. Surgical strategy with oncological principles determines the quality and long-term success of the operation in early cervical cancer regardless of laparoscopic approach.

Effect of 5A nursing mode combined with fine nursing management on perioperative self-efficacy and living quality of hysteromyoma

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we investigated the effects of 5A nursing mode combined with fine nursing management on perioperative self-efficacy and living quality of hysteromyoma.

METHODS

116 hysteromyoma patients admitted to our hospital during August 2018 to August 2020 were enrolled as the research objects, and divided into control group and observation group by random-number-table method. Each group contained 58 cases. The control-group patients were treated with conventional basic nursing, while the observation-group patients received combined treatment of 5A nursing mode and fine nursing management. Subsequently, the changes of self-efficacy, living quality of the two groups of patients before and after interventions, and the occurrence of postoperative complications in both groups were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

The self-efficacy scores of both groups after intervention were markedly higher than those before intervention (P < 0.05), and the score of the observation-group after intervention was obviously higher than that of control-group (P < 0.05). The scores of the quality of life of the two groups after intervention were remarkably higher than those before intervention (P < 0.05), and the score of observation group after intervention was substantially higher than that of control group (P < 0.05). In addition, the incidence of complications in observation group was notably lower than that in control group, and the difference was statistically significant (10.34%, 29.31%, χ² = 6.5619, P = 0.0104).

CONCLUSION

The combined treatment of 5A nursing mode and fine nursing management has showed good nursing concept and standard nursing methods. It can effectively improve the self-efficacy and quality of life in hysteromyoma patients during perioperative period.

Analysis of abdominal vs. robotic radical hysterectomies for patients with cervical cancer: a Bulgarian experience

To assess and compare the peri-operative, oncologic, and survival outcomes for women with cervical cancer (CC) treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) versus robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) approaches in Bulgaria. We retrospectively analyzed patients with histologically diagnosed CC operated via ARH or RRH methods during January-2008 to April-2019. The data analyzed include patients and tumor characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, and disease status. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were performed to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). There were consecutive 1347 patients (ARH = 1006, RRH = 341), which formed the basis of study analyses. Women in the RRH group had significantly shorter median hospital length-of-stay than ARH cases (7 vs. 11 days, p < 0.001), higher post-operative hemoglobin (116 vs. 108 g/L, p < 0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (7.3% vs. 21.5%, p < 0.001), respectively. The overall incidence of post-operative complications was also lower in the RRH vs. ARH group (2.1% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001). Median follow-up time for ARH vs. RRH groups was 4.32 vs. 5.24 years, respectively (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the RRH cohort had a significantly higher survival rate compared to the ARH group (CC-specific death 8.5% vs. 16.5% respectively). Mean time to recurrence did not differ significantly in either surgical approach (p = 0.495). Cox multivariate regression showed no significant impact of surgical approach on DFS or OS. No significant difference in DFS or OS between ARH vs. RRH for CC was observed. RRH approach does not lead to inferior oncologic outcomes and is associated with better peri-operative outcomes. In regard to "all stages" of CC, we found robotic surgery safer compared to laparotomy, and thus consider RRH a better surgical treatment option for patients with CC.

Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in women with early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This review aimed to evaluate the short term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for early-stage cervical cancer. A search of PubMed, Medline and Scopus databased from 2000 to 2018 was conducted. Thirty studies were retrieved including 22 retrospective cohort studies and 8 prospective cohort studies. LRH was comparable with ARH in 5-year overall survival (RR = 1.0. 95%CI 0.98-1.03; p = 0.33) and 5-year disease-free survival (RR = 1.02 95%CI 0.97-1.06; p = 0.98). The majority of included studies reported the negative cancer factors which drive adjuvant therapy were similar between two approaches. LRH was associated with lower blood loss and blood transfusion, less postoperative complication, shorter hospital stays and similar intraoperative complication rate compared to ARH. Our data suggested LRH for early-stage cervical cancer was as safe and effective in terms of long-term outcomes, but with lower surgical morbidities.

Comparison of oncological outcomes and major complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumour size less than 2 cm

OBJECTIVE

To compare the oncological outcomes and major complications of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for stage IB1 cervical cancer (FIGO 2009) with a tumour size less than 2 cm.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes and major complications of 1207 stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm who received LRH (n = 546) or ARH (n = 661) in 37 hospitals.

RESULTS

(1) There was no significant difference in 3-year overall survival (OS; 97.3% vs. 98.5%, P = 0.288) or 3-year disease-free survival (DFS; 95.1% vs. 95.4%, P = 0.792) between LRH (n = 546) and ARH (n = 661).(2) The rate of any 1 complication refers to the incidence of one or more complications in a patient, which was higher with LRH than ARH (OR = 4.047, 95% CI = 2.035-8.048, P < 0.001). Additionally, intraoperative complications occurred with LRH (OR = 12.313, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.571-96.493, P = 0.017), and postoperative complications (OR = 3.652, 95% CI = 1.763-7.562, P < 0.001) were higher with LRH than ARH. The ureteral injury rate was higher with LRH than with ARH (1.50% vs. 0.20%, OR = 9.814, 95% CI = 1.224-78.712, P = 0.032). The ureterovaginal fistula rate was higher with LRH than ARH. The rates of obturator nerve injury, bladder injury, vesicovaginal fistula, rectovaginal fistula, venous thromboembolism, bowel obstruction, chylous leakage, pelvic haematoma, and haemorrhage were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The oncological outcomes of LRH and ARH for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients with a tumour size less than 2 cm do not differ significantly. However, incidences of any 1 complication, intraoperative complications, and postoperative complications were higher with LRH than ARH, with complications manifesting mainly as ureteral injury and uterovaginal fistula.

The influence of learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy on oncological outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer: an observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer and quantify impact on oncological outcomes.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral centre with one surgical team.

POPULATION

All women with early-stage cervical cancer treated consecutively with robot-assisted laparoscopy between 2007 and 2017.

METHODS

With multivariate risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis (RA-CUSUM), we assessed the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy of a single surgical team based on cervical cancer recurrence. Subsequently, a survival analysis was conducted comparing oncological outcomes of women treated during different phases of the learning curve.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgical proficiency based on recurrence, survival rates in the different learning phases.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-five women with cervical cancer underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy, with a median follow up of 57 months (range 3-132 months). The RA-CUSUM analysis demonstrated two phases of the learning curve: a learning phase of 61 procedures (group 1) and an experienced phase representing the 104 procedures thereafter (group 2). The 5-year disease-free survival was 80.2% in group 1 and 91.1% in group 2 (P = 0.040). Both the 5-year disease-specific survival and overall survival significantly increased after the learning phase.

CONCLUSION

The learning phase of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer in this institutional cohort is at least 61 procedures, with higher survival rates in the women treated thereafter. The learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy affects oncological outcomes and warrants more attention in the design of future studies.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

The learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer affects oncological outcomes and warrants more attention.

Survival after Laparoscopic versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Early Cervical Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported the safety of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer, as option to laparotomy. This study aims to compare overall survival between laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.

METHODS

A single-center randomized controlled trial enrolled 30 patients with clinically staged IA2 cervical cancer and lymphovascular invasion, IB and IIA, who underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (16) or abdominal radical hysterectomy (14).

RESULT

The mean overall survival time was 74.74 months (CI 95%: 54.15-95.33) for LRH 91.67 months (CI 95%: 74.97-108.37) for ARH (log-rank test = 0.30). The mean disease-free survival time was 81.07 months (CI 95%: 60.95-101.19) for LRH and 95.82 months (CI 95%: 80.18-111.47) for ARH (log-rank test = 0.371). The overall survival hazard ratio was 2.05 (CI 95%: 0.51-8.24), and the disease-free hazard ratio was 2.13 (CI 95%: 0.39-11.7).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests a non-significant trend of worse outcomes for LRH. In light of recent controversy and need for prospective studies, further studies in different populations are required for definite conclusions and until then, patients should be aware of risks and benefits, survival data and quality of life outcomes related to both surgical techniques.

Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to compare survival outcomes including disease-free survival (DFS) between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in patients with cervical cancer.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Google scholar, and the Cochrane library for studies published between December 2004 and May 2020. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two researchers independently extracted the data. Studies with survival outcome information were included.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 36 eligible clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the hazard ratio (HR) of LRH for the risk of DFS and overall survival (OS) compared with ARH was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.41; p = .001; I² = 37.5%) and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.04-1.56; p = .020; I² = 45.5%), respectively. In a subgroup analysis, significant harmful effects of DFS in patients with LRH increased in studies using the HR presented by the article (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.64; p <.001), matched retrospective design (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.19-1.88; p = .001), large-scale studies (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16-1.55; p <.001), and studies published after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.25-1.71; p <.001). However, LRH did not affect DFS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.59-1.81; p = .898) or OS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.31-1.05; p = .073) of patients with cervical cancer with cervical masses <2 cm.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LRH was associated with higher recurrence rates than ARH. However, LRH showed similar recurrence and OS among patients with cervical masses <2 cm (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 42020191713).

The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality have declined in developed countries during the past few decades as a result of screening programs and vaccination. However, it remains a significant cause of cancer-related mortality in young women. Early-stage cervical cancer, defined as disease limited to the cervix, has traditionally been treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy via laparotomy. Although most early-stage cervical cancers can be cured with open radical hysterectomy, the morbidity associated with open radical hysterectomy is significant compared with simple extrafascial hysterectomy. Since the early 1990s, minimally invasive surgery has been explored for the treatment of this disease, with the goal of minimizing the morbidity associated with open surgery, as reported for endometrial cancer surgery. This report reviews the landmark studies describing and evaluating minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

Does a pre-operative conization improve disease-free survival in early-stage cervical cancer?

PURPOSE

Ever since the recent findings showing the lack of benefit of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open surgery in early-stage cervical cancer, gynecologists have tried to explain these results. The primary objective of our study was to assess the impact of pre-operative conization on disease-free survival (DFS) in early-stage cervical cancer. The secondary objective was to analyze the peri-operative morbidity associated with a pre-operative conization.

METHODS

All patients undergoing a surgical management for early-stage squamous carcinoma or adenocarcinoma cervical cancer (IA1, IA2, IB1 and IB2 FIGO 2018) at a French university hospital from 2004 to 2018 were retrospectively included. We examined the association between conization and DFS using a Cox regression model. We also analyzed the morbidity associated with pre-operative conization.

RESULTS

48.4% (44/91) of the patients had a pre-operative conization (defined by a conization up to 90 days prior to surgery). 86.8% underwent MIS. There was a non-significant increase in the DFS with one patient presenting a recurrence in the conization group (2.3%) and six (12.8%) in the no conization group (log rank = 0.09). In univariate analysis, conization, definitive FIGO stage and pre-operative tumor size were associated with DFS (p < 0.2). Only pre-operative tumor size was significantly associated with DFS in multivariate analysis. There was a non-significant increase of adverse events in the conization group (43.2% in the conization group versus 23.4%, p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Conization, through a reduction of tumor size, could improve DFS. Carefully selected patients could still benefit from minimally invasive surgery.

Efficacy of different surgical approaches on survival outcomes in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: protocol for a multicentre longitudinal study in China

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies have revealed that the oncological survival outcomes of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy (MIRH) are inferior to those of abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in early-stage cervical cancer, but the potential reasons are unclear.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Each expert from 28 study centres participating in a previously reported randomised controlled trial (NCT03739944) will provide successive eligible records of at least 100 patients who accepted radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015. Inclusion criteria consist of a definite pathological evaluation of stages IA1 (with positive lymphovascular space invasion), IA2 and IB1 according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 staging system and a histological subtype of squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma. The primary endpoint is 5-year disease-free survival between the MIRH and ARH groups. The secondary endpoints include the MIRH learning curves of participating surgeons, 5-year overall survival between the MIRH and ARH groups, survival outcomes according to surgical chronology, surgical outcomes and sites of recurrence and potential risk factors that affect survival outcomes. A subgroup analysis in patients with tumour diameter less than 2 cm will follow the similar flow diagram.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (registration no. JS-1711), and is also filed on record by all other 27 centres. The results will be disseminated through community events and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03738969.

Survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer - A population-based study

AIM

Lately, the safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the treatment of cervical cancer (CC) has been questioned. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of recurrence and survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic MIS for the treatment of early-stage CC in Denmark.

METHODS

Population-based data on all Danish women with early-stage CC, who underwent radical hysterectomy January 1st 2005-June 30th 2017 were retrieved from the Danish Gynecologic Cancer Database and enriched with follow-up data on recurrence, death and cause of death. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the year of robotic MIS introduction at each cancer centre. Chi-squared or Fischer test, the Kaplan Meier method and multivariate Cox regression were used for comparison between groups.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred twenty-five patients with CC were included; 530 underwent surgery before (group 1) and 595 underwent surgery after (group 2) the introduction of robotic MIS. The 5-year rate of recurrence was low: 8.2% and 6.3% (p = 0.55) in group 1 and 2, respectively. In adjusted analyses, this corresponded to a five-year disease-free survival, hazard ratio (HR) 1.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.93]. No difference in site of recurrence (P = 0.19) was observed. The cumulative cancer-specific survival was 94.1% and 95.9% (P = 0.10) in group 1 and 2, respectively, corresponding to a HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.32-1.11] in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

In this population-based cohort study, the Danish nationwide adoption of robotic MIS for early-stage CC was not associated with increased risk of recurrence or reduction in survival outcomes.

Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Standard treatment of early cervical cancer involves a radical hysterectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. The existing evidence on the incidence of adverse events after minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer is either nonrandomized or retrospective.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of adverse events after minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

The Laparoscopic Approach to Carcinoma of the Cervix trial was a multinational, randomized noninferiority trial that was conducted between 2008 and 2017, in which surgeons from 33 tertiary gynecologic cancer centers in 24 countries randomly assigned 631 women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 stage IA1 with lymph-vascular invasion to IB1 cervical cancer to undergo minimally invasive (n = 319) or open radical hysterectomy (n = 312). The Laparoscopic Approach to Carcinoma of the Cervix trial was suspended for enrolment in September 2017 because of an increased risk of recurrence and death in the minimally invasive surgery group. Here we report on a secondary outcome measure: the incidence of intra- and postoperative adverse events within 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Of 631 randomly assigned patients, 536 (85%; mean age, 46.0 years) met inclusion criteria for this analysis; 279 (52%) underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, and 257 (48%) underwent open radical hysterectomy. Of those, 300 (56%), 91 (16.9%), and 69 (12.8%) experienced at least 1 grade ≥2 or ≥3 or a serious adverse event, respectively. The incidence of intraoperative grade ≥2 adverse events was 12% (34/279 patients) in the minimally invasive group vs 10% (26/257) in the open group (difference, 2.1%; 95% confidence interval, -3.3 to 7.4%; P=.45). The overall incidence of postoperative grade ≥2 adverse events was 54% (152/279 patients) in the minimally invasive group vs 48% (124/257) in the open group (difference, 6.2%; 95% confidence interval, -2.2 to 14.7%; P=.14).

CONCLUSION

For early cervical cancer, the use of minimally invasive compared with open radical hysterectomy resulted in a similar overall incidence of intraoperative or postoperative adverse events.

Short-term surgical complications after radical hysterectomy-A nationwide cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Centralization has, among other aspects, been argued to have an impact on quality of care in terms of surgical morbidity. Next, monitoring quality of care is essential in identifying areas of improvement. This nationwide cohort study was conducted to determine the rate of short-term surgical complications and to evaluate its possible predictors in women with early-stage cervical cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Women diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer, 2009 FIGO stages IB1 and IIA1, between 2015 and 2017 who underwent radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy in 1 of the 9 specialized medical centers in the Netherlands, were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Women were excluded if primary treatment consisted of hysterectomy without parametrial dissection or radical trachelectomy. Women in whom radical hysterectomy was aborted during the procedure, were also excluded. Occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications and type of complications, developing within 30 days after surgery, were prospectively registered. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of surgical complications.

RESULTS

A total of 472 women were selected, of whom 166 (35%) developed surgical complications within 30 days after radical hysterectomy. The most frequent complications were urinary retention with catheterization in 73 women (15%) and excessive perioperative blood loss >1000 mL in 50 women (11%). Open surgery (odds ratio [OR] 3.42; 95% CI 1.73-6.76), chronic pulmonary disease (OR 3.14; 95% CI 1.45-6.79), vascular disease (OR 1.90; 95% CI 1.07-3.38), and medical center (OR 2.83; 95% CI 1.18-6.77) emerged as independent predictors of the occurrence of complications. Body mass index (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-1.00) was found as a negative predictor of urinary retention. Open surgery (OR 36.65; 95% CI 7.10-189.12) and body mass index (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.08-1.22) were found to be independent predictors of excessive perioperative blood loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term surgical complications developed in 35% of the women after radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer in the Netherlands, a nation with centralized surgical care. Comorbidities predict surgical complications, and open surgery is associated with excessive perioperative blood loss.

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.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy has higher risk of perioperative urologic complication than abdominal radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of 38 studies

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to assess risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library for studies published up to December, 2018. Manual searches of related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also performed. Two researchers independently performed data extraction. Inclusion criteria of studies were: (1) had information of perioperative complications, and (2) had at least ten patients per group.

RESULTS

A total of 38 eligible clinical trials were collected. Intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications were reported by 34 studies and 35 studies, respectively. When all studies were pooled, odd ratios (OR) of LRH for the risk of intraoperative urologic complications compared to abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) was 1.40 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.87]. The OR of LRH for postoperative complication risk compared to ARH was 1.35 [95% CI 1.01-1.80]. However, significant adverse effects of intraoperative urologic complications in LRH were not observed among articles published after 2012 (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.77-1.62) in cumulative meta-analysis or subgroup analysis. The incidence of bladder injury was statistically higher than that of ureter injury (p = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, obesity and laparoscopic type (laparoscopic assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy) were associated with intraoperative urologic complications.

CONCLUSION

LRH is associated with significantly higher risk of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications than abdominal radical hysterectomy.

Surgeons' posture and muscle strain during laparoscopic and robotic surgery

Background

It is assumed that conventional laparoscopy (LAP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) differ in terms of the surgeon's comfort. This study compared muscle workload, work posture and perceived physical exertion of surgeons performing LAP or RALS.

Methods

Colorectal surgeons with experience in advanced LAP and RALS performed one of each operation. Bipolar surface electromyography (EMG) recordings were made from forearm, shoulder and neck muscles, and expressed relative to EMG maximum (%EMGmax). The static, median and peak levels of muscle activity were calculated, and an exposure variation analysis undertaken. Postural observations were carried out every 10 min, and ratings of perceived physical exertion before and after surgery were recorded.

Results

The study included 13 surgeons. Surgeons performing LAP showed higher static, median, and peak forearm muscle activity than those undertaking RALS. Muscle activity at peak level was higher during RALS than LAP. Exposure variation analysis demonstrated long-lasting periods of low-level intensity muscle activity in the shoulders for LAP, in the forearms for RALS, and in the neck for both procedures. Postural observations revealed a greater need for a change in work posture when performing LAP compared with RALS. Perceived physical exertion was no different between the surgical modalities.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive surgery requires long-term static muscle activity with a high physical workload for surgeons. RALS is less demanding on posture.

Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery for Gynecologic Cancers: A Review

Minimally invasive robotic surgery has become an effective surgical technique for the treatment of gynecologic malignancies. This article reviews the current utilization of robotic surgery and its role for future treatment in gynecologic oncology.

Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent studies demonstrating shorter survival among cervical cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy could not account for surgeon volume and require confirmation in other jurisdictions with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up, and data on disease recurrence.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if surgical approach is associated with oncologic outcomes in cervical cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive or open radical hysterectomy, while accounting for mechanistic factors including surgeon volume.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of cervical cancer patients undergoing primary radical hysterectomy by a gynecologic oncologist from 2006 to 2017 in Ontario, Canada. A multivariable marginal Cox proportional hazards model and cause-specific hazards model were used to evaluate the association of surgical approach with all-cause death and recurrence respectively, clustering at the surgeon level. We tested for interactions between surgical approach and either pathologic stage or surgeon volume.

RESULTS

We identified 958 patients (minimally invasive 475; open 483) with mean age 45.9 and a median follow-up of 6 years. Of minimally invasive procedures, 89.6% were performed laparoscopically and 10.4% robotically. The unadjusted 5-year cumulative incidences of all-cause death (minimally invasive 12.5%; open 5.4%), cervical cancer death (minimally invasive 9.3%; open 3.3%), and recurrence (minimally invasive 16.2%; open 8.4%) were significantly increased for minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB disease, but not the cohort overall. After adjusting for patient factors and surgeon volume, minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with increased rates of death (hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-4.19) and recurrence (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.10-3.50) compared to open radical hysterectomy in patients with stage IB disease (n = 534), but not IA disease (n = 244; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.13-4.01; HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.10-1.10).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy is associated with increased rates of death and recurrence in patients with stage IB cervical cancer even after controlling for surgeon volume; open radical hysterectomy should be the recommended approach in this population. Although there may be a subset of patients with microscopic early-stage disease for whom minimally invasive radical hysterectomy remains safe, additional studies are required.

Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy, ranking first in female reproductive malignancies with more than 500000 new cases and 275000 deaths each year. Traditionally, open radical hysterectomy is considered the standard surgical procedure for the treatment of resectable cervical cancer. The latest guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society of Gynecological Oncology suggest that open surgery and laparoscopic surgery (using traditional laparoscopic or robotic techniques) are the main surgical approaches for radical hysterectomy for patients with stage IA2-IIA cervical cancer. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in abdominal surgery and has shown more beneficial effects.

AIM

To analyse the perioperative conditions, complications, and short-term and long-term effects in patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) to compare their clinical efficacy, safety, and feasibility.

METHODS

The perioperative data of patients undergoing RRH and LRH were extracted and collected from the database of surgical treatments for cervical cancer for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 342 underwent LRH for cervical cancer, and 216 underwent RRH. The total complication rate was 9.65% (20 patients) in the RRH group and 17.59% (60 patients) in the LRH group. The complication rate was significantly lower in the RRH group than in the LRH group. There was no significant difference in the follow-up period (P = 0.658). The total recurrence rates were 15.7% and 12% in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively. The progression-free survival time was 28.91 ± 15.68 mo and 28.34 ± 15.13 mo in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.669). The overall survival (OS) rates were 92.13% and 94.45% in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.292). The OS time was 29.87 ± 15.92 mo and 29.41 ± 15.14 mo in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.732). The survival curves and the progression-free survival curves were not statistically significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.407 and 0.28, respectively).

CONCLUSION

RRH is associated with significantly less operative time and blood loss than LRH. The two procedures have similar complication rates, OS, and progression-free survival time.

Radical Hysterectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Bulky-Size Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Comparative Analysis between the Robotic and Abdominal Approaches

Radical hysterectomy (RH) is the standard treatment for early stage cervical cancer, but the surgical approach for locally bulky-size cervical cancer (LBS-CC) is still unclear. We retrospectively compared the outcomes of women with LBS-CC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and subsequent RH between the robotic (R-RH) and abdominal approaches (A-RH). Between 2012 and 2014, 39 women with LBS-CC FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage IB2–IIB were treated with NACT-R-RH (n = 18) or NACT-A-RH (n = 21). Surgical parameters and prognosis were compared. Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the groups, but the NACT-R-RH group had significantly more patients with FIGO stage IIB disease, received multi-agent-based NACT, and had a lower percentage of deep stromal invasion than the NACT-A-RH group. After NACT-R-RH, surgical parameters were better, but survival outcomes, such as disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), were significantly worse. On multivariate analysis, FIGO stage IIB contributed to worse DFS (p = 0.003) and worse OS (p = 0.012) in the NACT-A-RH group. Women with LBS-CC treated with NACT-R-RH have better perioperative outcomes but poorer survival outcomes compared with those treated with NACT-A-RH. Thus, patients with FIGO stage IIB LBS-CC disease might not be suitable for surgery after multi-agent-based NACT.

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.

Robotic Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Population-Based Study of Adoption and Immediate Postoperative Outcomes in the United States

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the use of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in the United States, with secondary outcomes of perioperative complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), immediate postoperative mortality, cost and a subanalysis compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), a government-funded database of hospitalization in the United States.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

All women with cervical cancer undergoing RH between 2008 and 2015 in the United States and included in the NIS database.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Trends in surgical modality, baseline characteristics, LOS, perioperative outcomes, mortality, and hospital charges were compared between RRH and ARH. Regression models were adjusted for baseline characteristics. Among 41,317 women with cervical cancer, 3563 underwent RH, including 21.0% with a robotic procedure, 6.5% with a laparoscopic procedure, and 72.5% with open surgery. The annual rates of ARH declined significantly over the study period, whereas those of RRH increased. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the RRH and ARH groups. Compared with the ARH group, women undergoing RRH had a lower rate of cumulative postoperative complications (18.16% vs 21.21%; odds ratio [OR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6-1.0; p = .05), including lower rates of wound infection (0.27% vs 1.82%; OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.6; p < .01), sepsis (0.27% vs 1.20%; OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.9; p = .03), fever (1.87% vs 4.06%; OR, 0.44, 95% CI, 0.3-0.8; p < .01), and ileus (2.8% vs 9.13%; OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.4; p < .01). The LOS was significantly shorter in the RRH group (median, 2 days vs 4 days; p < .01). The total median hospitalization charge was $47,218 for the RRH group, compared with $38,877 for the ARH group (p < .01).

CONCLUSION

RRH is being increasingly performed in the United States and is associated with shorter LOS and less postoperative morbidity; however, long-term oncologic outcomes require additional attention.