Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery and Da Vinci Single-Port Robotic Surgery

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to compare the surgical outcomes of single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and single-port robotic surgery (SPRS).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent a hysterectomy, ovarian cystectomy, or myomectomy with SPLS or SPRS from January 2020 to July 2022. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS chi-square test and student's t-test.

RESULTS

A total of 566 surgeries including single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SPLH; n = 148), single-port robotic hysterectomy (SPRH; n = 35), single-port laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy (SPLC; n = 207), single-port robotic ovarian cystectomy (SPRC; n = 108), single-port laparoscopic myomectomy (SPLM; n = 12), and single-port robotic myomectomy (SPRM; n = 56). The SPRH, SPRC, and SPRM groups had a shorter operation time than the SPLS group, although the results were not statistically significant (SPRH vs. SPLH, p = 0.134; SPRC vs. SPLC, p = 0.098; SPRM vs. SPLM, p = 0.202). Incisional hernia occurred as a postoperative complication in two patients only in the SPLH group. Postoperative Hb changes were lower in the SPRC and SPRM groups than in the SPLC and SPLM groups (SPRC vs. SPLC, p = 0.023; SPRM vs. SPLM, p = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that the SPRS had comparable surgical outcomes when compared to the SPLS. Therefore, the SPRS should be considered a feasible and safe option for gynecologic patients.

Learning curve could affect oncologic outcome of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Recent prospective studies have shown poorer oncologic outcomes following minimally invasive surgery, which has led many surgeons to deeply inspect their practices. We reviewed our experience and evaluated the results of radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with early stage cervical cancer (Ia1 - IIa1) who were treated with radical hysterectomy from May 2006 to Dec 2016. Patients were divided into three groups according to the surgical approach: radical abdominal hysterectomy (RAH), laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH), and robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH).

RESULTS

Learning curves of each type of surgery were obtained using the cumulative sum method. Survival rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves. To analyze the learning curve of a single surgeon, 89 patients were selected from the whole population. Learning curves of each group showed two distinct phases. The minimum number of cases required to achieve surgical improvement were 16 in RAH, 13 in LRH, and 21 in RRH. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival did not vary between RAH and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (p = .828 and p = .757, respectively). However, when stratified by the phases of the learning curves, patients included in the early phase of MIS showed a poorer PFS (p = .014).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical proficiency could significantly affect the oncologic outcome in MIS. A prospective study regarding sufficient surgical competence is necessary for elaborate analysis of the feasibility of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.