Integration of robotics into two established programs of minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer appears to decrease surgical complications

被引:29
作者
Cardenas-Goicoechea, Joel [1 ]
Soto, Enrique [2 ]
Chuang, Linus [1 ]
Gretz, Herbert [1 ]
Randall, Thomas C. [3 ]
机构
[1] Mt Sinai Sch Med, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Sci, Div Gynecol Oncol, New York, NY USA
[2] Mt Sinai Sch Med, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Sci, Div Minimally Invas Surg, New York, NY USA
[3] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Penn Hosp, Div Gynecol Oncol, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
关键词
Endometrial neoplasms; Laparoscopic surgery; Robotics; ASSISTED HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROTOMY; LAPAROSCOPY; OUTCOMES; LYMPHADENECTOMY; COST;
D O I
10.3802/jgo.2013.24.1.21
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective: To compare peri- and postoperative outcomes and complications of laparoscopic vs. robotic-assisted surgical staging for women with endometrial cancer at two established academic institutions. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all women that underwent total hysterectomy with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy by robotic-assisted or laparoscopic approach over a four-year period by three surgeons at two academic institutions. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were measured. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, number of lymph nodes retrieved, length of hospital stay and need for re-operation or re-admission. Results: Four hundred and thirty-two cases were identified: 187 patients with robotic-assisted and 245 with laparoscopic staging. Both groups were statistically comparable in baseline characteristics. The overall rate of intraoperative complications was similar in both groups (1.6% vs. 2.9%, p=0.525) but the rate of urinary tract injuries was statistically higher in the laparoscopic group (2.9% vs. 0%, p=0.020). Patients in the robotic group had shorter hospital stay (1.96 days vs. 2.45 days, p=0.016) but an average 57 minutes longer surgery than the laparoscopic group (218 vs. 161 minutes, p=0.0001). There was less conversion rate (0.5% vs. 4.1%; relative risk, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 1.34; p=0.027) and estimated blood loss in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (187 mL vs. 110 mL, p=0.0001). There were no significant differences in blood transfusion rate, number of lymph nodes retrieved, re-operation or re-admission between the two groups. Conclusion: Robotic-assisted surgery is an acceptable alternative to laparoscopy for staging of endometrial cancer and, in selected patients, it appears to have lower risk of urinary tract injury.
引用
收藏
页码:21 / 28
页数:8
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] Cost Comparison Among Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer
    Barnett, Jason C.
    Judd, John P.
    Wu, Jennifer M.
    Scales, Charles D., Jr.
    Myers, Evan R.
    Havrilesky, Laura J.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 116 (03) : 685 - 693
  • [2] 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
  • [3] 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
  • [4] 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
  • [5] LAPAROSCOPICALLY ASSISTED SURGICAL STAGING (LASS) OF ENDOMETRIAL CANCER
    CHILDERS, JM
    BRZECHFFA, PR
    HATCH, KD
    SURWIT, EA
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 1993, 51 (01) : 33 - 38
  • [6] Current trends in robot assisted surgery: a survey of gynecologic oncologists
    duPont, Nefertiti C.
    Chandrasekhar, Rameela
    Wilding, Gregory
    Guru, Khurshid A.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2010, 6 (04) : 468 - 472
  • [7] Instituting a robot-assisted surgery programme at a tertiary care cancer centre
    dupont, Nefertiti C.
    Guru, Khurshid A.
    Iskander, George B.
    Odunsi, Kunle
    Lele, Shashikant B.
    Rodabaugh, Kerry J.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2010, 6 (03) : 330 - 333
  • [8] Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer Compared With Traditional Laparoscopic and Laparotomy Approaches A Systematic Review
    Gaia, Giorgia
    Holloway, Robert W.
    Santoro, Luigi
    Ahmad, Sarfraz
    Di Silverio, Elena
    Spinillo, Arsenio
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 116 (06) : 1422 - 1431
  • [9] Comparison of robotic-assisted surgery outcomes with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging in Turkey
    Gocmen, Ahmet
    Sanlikan, Fatih
    Ucar, Mustafa Gazi
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2010, 282 (05) : 539 - 545
  • [10] The impact of robotics on practice management of endometrial cancer: transitioning from traditional surgery
    Hoekstra, Anna V.
    Jairam-Thodla, Arati
    Rademaker, Alfred
    Singh, Diljeet K.
    Buttin, Barbara M.
    Lurain, John R.
    Schink, Julian C.
    Lowe, M. Patrick
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2009, 5 (04) : 392 - 397