Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer

被引:37
作者
Nie, Ji-Chan [1 ]
Yan, An-Qi [1 ]
Liu, Xi-Shi [1 ]
机构
[1] Fudan Univ, Shanghai Obstet & Gynecol Hosp, Fangxie Rd 419, Shanghai 200011, Peoples R China
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy; Cervical cancer; Traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy; VAGINAL HYSTERECTOMY; GYNECOLOGIC-ONCOLOGY; PELVIC LYMPHADENECTOMY; ABDOMINAL HYSTERECTOMY; SURGERY; CARCINOMA; LAPAROTOMY; EXPERIENCE; RADIATION;
D O I
10.1097/IGC.0000000000001101
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) with traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in a large retrospective cohort of a total of 933 patients. Methods: We have enrolled 100 patients into the RRH and 833 patients into the TLRH group. The surgical outcomes include operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate, pelvic lymph node yield, hospitalization days, duration of bowel function recovery, catheter removal before and after 3 weeks, conversion to laparotomy, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Follow-up results were also analyzed for all patients. Results: Both groups have similar patient and tumor characteristics but patients with a larger lesion size were preferably enrolled in the TLRH treatment group. The treatment with RRH was generally superior to TLRH with respect to operating time, blood loss, length of hospitalization, duration of bowel function recovery, and postoperative complications. On follow-up of patients, there were no relapses reported in the RRH group compared with 4% of relapse cases and 2.9% of deaths because of metastasis in the TLRH group. No conversion of laparotomy occurred in the RRH group. No significant difference was found with respect to intraoperative complications and blood transfusion between both groups. Conclusions: The results from this study suggest that RRH is superior to TLRH with regard to surgical outcome and may pose a safe and feasible alternative to TLRH. The operating time and lymph node yield is acceptable. Our study is one of the largest single-center studies of surgical outcomes comparing RRH with TLRH during cervical cancer treatment and will significantly contribute to the safety of alternative treatment options for patients. Furthermore, the difference detected between TLRH and RRH group is further strengthened by the great expertise of the surgeon performing laparoscopic surgeries.
引用
收藏
页码:1990 / 1999
页数:10
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [11] Esteban-Vives R., 2017, Burns, P1
  • [12] Surgical versus radiographic determination of para-aortic lymph node metastases before chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical carcinoma - A Gynecologic oncology group study
    Gold, Michael A.
    Tian, Chunqiao
    Whitney, Charles W.
    Rose, Peter G.
    Lanciano, Rachelle
    [J]. CANCER, 2008, 112 (09) : 1954 - 1963
  • [13] Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy-perioperative and survival outcomes in patients with cervical cancer compared to laparoscopic and open radical surgery
    Gortchev, Grigor
    Tomov, Slavcho
    Tantchev, Latchesar
    Velkova, Angelika
    Radionova, Zdravka
    [J]. GYNECOLOGICAL SURGERY, 2012, 9 (01) : 81 - 88
  • [14] ROBOTIC SURGERY IN GYNECOLOGY
    Holloway, R. W.
    Patel, S. D.
    Ahmad, S.
    [J]. SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2009, 98 (02) : 96 - 109
  • [15] Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy vs. radical abdominal hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a match controlled study
    Jackson, KS
    Das, N
    Naik, R
    Lopes, AD
    Godfrey, KA
    Hatem, MH
    Monaghan, JM
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2004, 95 (03) : 655 - 661
  • [16] Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma
    Keys, HM
    Bundy, BN
    Stehman, FB
    Muderspach, LI
    Chafe, WE
    Suggs, CL
    Walker, JL
    Gersell, D
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1999, 340 (15) : 1154 - 1161
  • [17] Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer Patients A Matched-Case Comparative Study
    Kim, Tae-Hyun
    Choi, Chel Hun
    Choi, June-Kuk
    Yoon, Aera
    Lee, Yoo-Young
    Kim, Tae-Joong
    Lee, Jeong-Won
    Bae, Duk-Soo
    Kim, Byoung-Gie
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2014, 24 (08) : 1466 - 1473
  • [18] Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: A comparative study at a single institution
    Ko, Emily M.
    Muto, Michael G.
    Berkowitz, Ross S.
    Feltmate, Colleen M.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2008, 111 (03) : 425 - 430
  • [19] Cervical Cancer, Version 2.2015 Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
    Koh, Wui-Jin
    Greer, Benjamin E.
    Abu-Rustum, Nadeem R.
    Apte, Sachin M.
    Campos, Susana M.
    Cho, Kathleen R.
    Chu, Christina
    Cohn, David
    Crispens, Marta Ann
    Dorigo, Oliver
    Eifel, Patricia J.
    Fisher, Christine M.
    Frederick, Peter
    Gaffney, David K.
    Han, Ernest
    Huh, Warner K.
    Lurain, John R., III
    Mutch, David
    Fader, Amanda Nickles
    Remmenga, Steven W.
    Reynolds, R. Kevin
    Teng, Nelson
    Tillmanns, Todd
    Valea, Fidel A.
    Yashar, Catheryn M.
    McMillian, Nicole R.
    Scavone, Jillian L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK, 2015, 13 (04): : 395 - 404
  • [20] Robot-Assisted Total Preservation of the Pelvic Autonomic Nerve With Extended Systematic Lymphadenectomy as Part of Nerve-Sparing Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer
    Lee, Yoon Soon
    Chong, Gun Oh
    Lee, Yoon Hee
    Hong, Dae Gy
    Cho, Young Lae
    Park, Il Soo
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2013, 23 (06) : 1132 - 1137