Robotic platforms for endometrial cancer treatment: review of the literature

Robotic surgery in endometrial cancer: first Polish experience

In Poland, robotic surgery is nowadays perceived as a new method of surgical treatment in endometrial cancer patients. We aim to present the first Polish group of endometrial cancer patients treated using robotic surgery. The analysis was based on 79 patients with mean age of 59.72 ± 11.709 (range 27-83) years and endometrial cancer scheduled for surgical treatment. Mean BMI was 31.38 ± 8.78 (range 19.03-65.97) kg/m2. The data were collected based on a questionnaire consisting of 19 questions concerning the patient's perception of robotic surgery before the procedure. Patients with a family history of neoplastic diseases indicate precision of movements as the most important reason for choosing robotic surgery (p = 0.0035). Patients after surgery procedures in the past named shorter hospitalization as a major benefit (p = 0.0037). Patients who chose robotic surgery for financial reasons stressed the cosmetic effect as a priority (p = 0.0319). Shorter length of hospital stay, less blood loss, enlarged view, and good visualization were statistically significant reasons for choosing robotic surgery (p < 0.05). Women who consider work, good material status, and well-being as the most important aspects of their lives cited the cosmetic effect as a benefit of robotic surgery (p = 0.0029 vs. p = 0.0074 vs. p = 0.01745, respectively). In the follow-up after operations, no patients regretted choosing robotic surgery. Good visualization, precise movements, less blood loss, and cosmetic effects are the most frequent reasons for choosing robotic surgery. Even patients after other types of surgery in the past decided on robot-assisted radical hysterectomy because of the clear benefits of this approach.

Cutting-edge Treatment for Gynecological Malignancies

Gynecological malignant tumors can develop in the vulva, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, or ovaries in the female reproductive tract. The cervix, uterine body, and ovaries are particularly common sites for malignant tumors. Surgery, radiation, and drug therapy are the main treatment modalities for gynecological cancers, with surgery being the most important of them. We started laparoscopic surgery for uterine endometrial cancer as an advanced medical treatment in 2011 and contributed to its insurance coverage. We were able to reproduce our laparoscopic surgery more easily using the da Vinci Xi system for robotic surgery. We have now switched from laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer to robotic surgery and have been able to perform them safely and reliably. In the case of cervical cancer, the results of the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial, which compared the prognosis of two groups of radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: conventional open surgery and laparoscopic/robotic (minimally invasive) surgery, showed that minimally invasive surgery resulted in more pelvic recurrences and had a worse prognosis compared with open surgery. The trend toward minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancer has stagnated worldwide. Ovarian cancer has few symptoms in the early stages and is often found at stage III or IV, when the cancer has spread throughout the abdominal cavity. As residual tumor after surgery correlates with prognosis in ovarian cancer, debulking surgery should be performed to achieve complete resection. Therefore, peritoneal or bowel resection is often required to remove disseminated or metastatic tumors. We also performed prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy to prevent ovarian and fallopian tube cancers in patients with BRCA1/2 gene variants. The uterus and ovaries are organs necessary for pregnancy and childbirth, and cancer of the uterus or ovaries in women of childbearing age may result in infertility. Surgery and adjuvant treatment may affect marriage, childbirth, and sexual life; therefore, it is important to ensure the cure of cancer and to provide patients with treatment methods that allow them to live their lives as women.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures with and without robotic assistance

OBJECTIVE

Following the publication of several high quality randomized controlled trials regarding the comparison of similar laparoscopic gynecologic procedures being performed with or without robotic assistance, we aimed to perform a systematic review to identify any differences in patient safety and expected incidence of complications in these procedures.

DATA SOURCES

Articles on ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were retrieved and screened for eligibility up to April 1st 2021.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

In addition to meeting our screening algorithm, we included studies that met all the following: randomized control trials (RCT), enrolling patients for indicated laparoscopic gynecologic procedures, and comparing Robotic Surgery (RS) with Laparoscopic Surgery (LS) in terms of safety or complications.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data was pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Ultimately, six studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data revealed that RS and LS have similar risk for intraoperative complications (RR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.23, 3.36], P = 0.84), postoperative complications (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [0.57, 2.01], P = 0.83), significant intraoperative hemorrhage (RR = 1.40; 95% CI [0.59, 3.34], P = 0.44), postoperative hemorrhage (RR = 0.43; 95% CI [0.15, 1.22], P = 0.11), vaginal cuff dehiscence (RR = 1.13; 95% CI [0.24, 5.41], P = 0.88), postoperative wound infection, urinary tract infection, and urinary bladder or ureteral injury. RS had "surgeon declared" lower estimated blood loss (MD = 85.27; 95% CI [46.45, 124.09], P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = 1.20; 95% CI [0.38, 2.01], P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

There was a statistically significant decrease in hospital stay and "surgeon declared" blood loss seen in the RS group. There was no statistically significant increase in risk of developing other postoperative complications between the LS and R groups.