Comparison of Oncological and Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Laparoscopic Modified Radical Hysterectomy and Laparotomy for Endometrial Cancer

被引:0
作者
Ishikawa, Masako [1 ]
Nakayama, Kentaro [2 ]
Razia, Sultana [3 ]
Yamashita, Hitomi [1 ]
Ishibashi, Tomoka [1 ]
Kanno, Kosuke [1 ]
Sato, Seiya [1 ]
Kyo, Satoru [1 ]
机构
[1] Shimane Univ, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Izumo, Shimane 6938501, Japan
[2] Nagoya City Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, East Med Ctr, Nagoya, Aichi 4648547, Japan
[3] Shimane Univ, Fac Med, Dept Legal Med, Izumo, Shimane 6938501, Japan
关键词
robotic surgery; hysterectomy; endometrial cancer; laparoscopic surgery; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; SURGERY; SAFETY; LYMPHADENECTOMY; SURVIVAL;
D O I
10.31083/j.ceog5102047
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background: This study aimed to compare the oncologic and surgical outcomes of patients treated with robot -assisted modified radical hysterectomy (RAMRH) and total laparoscopic modified radical hysterectomy (TLMRH) for endometrial cancer (EC) with those of patients treated with abdominal modified radical hysterectomy (AMRH). Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 133 patients with early -stage EC who underwent different surgical approaches (RAMRH, n = 14; TLMRH, n = 94; AMRH, n = 25) between 2018 and 2021 at Shimane University Hospital. The data on clinical outcomes, including estimated blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of hospital stay, and number of dissected lymph nodes were collected from the patients' electronic medical records. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to plot survival data, and log -rank tests were used to determine the statistical significance of differences in survival rates. Results: RAMRH showed the lowest bleeding volume (RAMRH: 95 +/- 123.21 mL; TLMRH: 140.74 +/- 172.60 mL; AMRH: 482.6 +/- 429 mL) and shortest hospital stay (RAMRH: 6.43 +/- 1.09 days; TLMRH: 7.30 +/- 3.39 days; AMRH: 9.88 +/- 2.65 days) among the three groups. The number of dissected lymph nodes tended to be higher in the RAMRH group than that in the TLMRH or AMRH group. The different surgical approaches did not correlate with progression -free survival and overall survival. Conclusions: Both RAMRH and TLMRH are safe, feasible, innovative, and minimally invasive surgical alternatives to AMRH for patients with EC.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [1] Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of stage I endometrial cancer
    Argenta, Peter A.
    Mattson, Jordan
    Rivard, Colleen L.
    Luther, Elizabeth
    Schefter, Alexandra
    Vogel, Rachel, I
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2022, 165 (02) : 347 - 352
  • [2] Barbagallo Giuseppe M V, 2012, Evid Based Spine Care J, V3, P43, DOI 10.1055/s-0032-1327809
  • [3] Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques
    Bell, Maria C.
    Torgerson, Jenny
    Seshadri-Kreaden, Usha
    Suttle, Allison Wierda
    Hunt, Sharon
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2008, 111 (03) : 407 - 411
  • [4] A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy
    Boggess, John F.
    Gehrig, Paola A.
    Cantrell, Leigh
    Shafer, Aaron
    Ridgway, Mildred
    Skinner, Elizabeth N.
    Fowler, Wesley C.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 199 (04) : 360.e1 - 360.e9
  • [5] Survival analysis of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic surgical staging for endometrial cancer
    Cardenas-Goicoechea, Joel
    Shepherd, Amanda
    Momeni, Mazdak
    Mandeli, John
    Chuang, Linus
    Gretz, Herbert
    Fishman, David
    Rahaman, Jamal
    Randall, Thomas
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2014, 210 (02) : 160.e1 - 160.e11
  • [6] Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center
    Cardenas-Goicoechea, Joel
    Adams, Sarah
    Bhat, Suneel B.
    Randall, Thomas C.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2010, 117 (02) : 224 - 228
  • [7] COMBINED LAPAROSCOPIC AND VAGINAL SURGERY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF 2 CASES OF STAGE-I ENDOMETRIAL CANCER
    CHILDERS, JM
    SURWIT, EA
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 1992, 45 (01) : 46 - 51
  • [8] Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer
    DeNardis, Sara A.
    Holloway, Robert W.
    Bigsby, Glenn E.
    Pikaart, Dirk P.
    Ahmad, Sarfraz
    Finkler, Neil J.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2008, 111 (03) : 412 - 417
  • [9] Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: Estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers in 2018
    Ferlay, J.
    Colombet, M.
    Soerjomataram, I.
    Dyba, T.
    Randi, G.
    Bettio, M.
    Gavin, A.
    Visser, O.
    Bray, F.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2018, 103 : 356 - 387
  • [10] Minimally Invasive Staging of Endometrial Cancer Is Feasible and Safe in Elderly Women
    Frey, Melissa K.
    Ihnow, Stephanie B.
    Worley, Michael J., Jr.
    Heyman, Katherine P.
    Kessler, Robin
    Slomovitz, Brian M.
    Holcomb, Kevin M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 18 (02) : 200 - 204