Robotic, Laparoscopic, or Open Hysterectomy: Surgical Outcomes by Approach in Endometrial Cancer

被引:28
作者
Beck, Tiffany L. [1 ]
Schiff, Melissa A. [2 ,3 ]
Goff, Barbara A. [1 ]
Urban, Renata R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Gynecol Oncol Div, Washington, DC 98195 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Dept Epidemiol, Sch Publ Hlth, Washington, DC 98195 USA
[3] Univ Washington, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Washington, DC 98195 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Robotic surgery; Endometrial cancer; Surgical outcomes; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; EPITHELIAL OVARIAN; UNITED-STATES; RISK-FACTORS; COST; READMISSIONS; LAPAROTOMY; MANAGEMENT; OBESITY; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jmig.2018.01.010
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Study Objectives: To compare patient outcomes by surgical approach in the management of endometrial cancer (EC) in Washington State from 2008 to 2013. Design: Population-based retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: Washington State. Patients: EC patients treated with robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), laparoscopy (LS), or laparotomy (XLAP). Interventions: Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System to identify patients and assess the association of surgical approach with length of stay. readmissions. and perioperative complications. Measurements and Results: We identified 3712 cases of EC managed with either RAS, LS, or XLAP. Mean length of stay was not clinically different for RAS (15 days) and LS (1.6 days) but was 2.31 days longer for XLAP compared with LS < .001). Odds of any readmission did not differ for either RAS or XLAP compared with LS; however, early readmissions were half as likely for RAS compared with LS (p = .014). Complications were more than 25 times as likely for XLAP versus LS (p < .001), whereas complications did not differ for RAS versus LS (p = .931). Conclusions: RAS is as an alternative to LS in the treatment of EC and is preferable to XLAP. The use of RAS resulted in fewer early readmissions compared with LS and resulted in an increased proportion of cases via minimally invasive surgery. (C) 2018 AAGL. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:986 / 993
页数:8
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   Risk Factors and Indications for 30-Day Readmission After Primary Surgery for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer [J].
AlHilli, Mariam ;
Langstraat, Carrie ;
Tran, Christine ;
Martin, Janice ;
Weaver, Amy ;
McGree, Michaela ;
Mariani, Andrea ;
Cliby, William ;
Bakkum-Gamez, Jamie .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2015, 25 (02) :193-202
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2017, US CANC STAT 1999 20
[3]  
[Anonymous], SGO QUAL MEAS PASS C
[4]  
[Anonymous], OUTC MEAS
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2012, SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Cervix Uteri Cancer
[6]  
[Anonymous], HOSP CASE MANAG
[7]   Route of hysterectomy and surgical outcomes from a statewide gynecologic oncology population: is there a role for vaginal hysterectomy? [J].
Beck, Tiffany L. ;
Morse, Christopher B. ;
Gray, Heidi J. ;
Goff, Barbara A. ;
Urban, Renata R. ;
Liao, John B. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 214 (03) :348.e1-348.e9
[8]   A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy [J].
Boggess, John F. ;
Gehrig, Paola A. ;
Cantrell, Leigh ;
Shafer, Aaron ;
Ridgway, Mildred ;
Skinner, Elizabeth N. ;
Fowler, Wesley C. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 199 (04) :357.e1-357.e7
[9]   Survival analysis of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic surgical staging for endometrial cancer [J].
Cardenas-Goicoechea, Joel ;
Shepherd, Amanda ;
Momeni, Mazdak ;
Mandeli, John ;
Chuang, Linus ;
Gretz, Herbert ;
Fishman, David ;
Rahaman, Jamal ;
Randall, Thomas .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2014, 210 (02) :160.e1-160.e11
[10]   Improved optimal cytoreduction rates for stages IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer: a change in surgical approach [J].
Chi, DS ;
Franklin, CC ;
Levine, DA ;
Akselrod, F ;
Sabbatini, P ;
Jarnagin, WR ;
DeMatteo, R ;
Poynor, EA ;
Abu-Rustum, NR ;
Barakat, RR .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2004, 94 (03) :650-654