Comparison of Robotic and laparoscopic Radical type-B and C hysterectomy for cervical cancer: Long term-outcomes

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.

Surgical and Patient Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review

Hysterectomy is a commonly performed gynecologic surgery that can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. However, the evolution of the surgical approach, from open to minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS), has substantially improved patient outcomes by reducing perioperative complications, pain, and length of hospitalization. The evident advantages and the approval of the da Vinci Surgical System by the Food and Drug Administration led to the exponential rise in the use of MIGS. In particular, robotic hysterectomy (RH) witnessed unparalleled popularity compared to other MIGS despite the lack of strong evidence demonstrating its superiority. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to evaluate and compare various patient and surgical outcomes of RH with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (CLH), including operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, overall complications, survival, and cost. Overall, the outcomes were comparable between RH and CLH except concerning cost. RH is significantly more expensive than CLH due to the higher costs of robotic equipment, including disposable instruments, equipment maintenance, and sterilization. Although RH demonstrated comparable outcomes and higher costs, its technical advantages such as improved ergonomics, three-dimensional view, a wider range of wristed mobility, mechanical lifting of robot's hand, and greater stability might benefit patient subsets (e.g., obesity, large uterine weights >750 g). Therefore, large and multicentered randomized control trials are imperative to determine the most effective surgical approach between RH and other MIGS for different patient subsets.

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.