From open radical hysterectomy to robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: aspects of a single institution learning curve (original) (raw)
Related papers
JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
To compare intraoperative, pathologic and postoperative outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) to total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) in patients with early stage cervical carcinoma. We prospectively analyzed cases of TLRH or RRH with pelvic lymphadenectomy performed for treatment of early cervical cancer between 2000 and 2008. Thirty patients underwent TLRH and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer from August 2000 to June 2006. Thirteen patients underwent RRH and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer from April 2006 to January 2008. There were no differences between groups for age, tumor histology, stage, lymphovascular space involvement or nodal status. No statistical differences were observed regarding operative time (323 vs 318 min), estimated blood loss (157 vs 200 mL), or hospital stay (2.7 vs 3.8 days). Mean pelvic lymph node count was similar in the two groups (25 vs 31). None of the robotic or laparoscopic procedures required conversion to lapa...
Gynecological Surgery, 2000
In this study, perioperative outcomes and survival data in patients with early cervical cancer operated with three surgical methods: robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open, are to be analyzed. From January 2006 to May 2010, 294 patients with T1в1 cervical cancer were studied retrospectively. Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RARH) was performed in 73 (24.8%) of them, laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) in 46 (15.6%) and, in 175, (59.5%), abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH). Mean hospital stay of patients with RARH and LARVH was 4.1 ± 0.7 and 4.8 ± 0.5, respectively, and of those with ARH, 9.6 ± 1.0 days (p = 0.001). Mean operative time was 152.2 ± 26.5 min for the robotic group as it was significantly shorter in comparison with the laparoscopic group (232.1 ± 61.7 min) and laparotomy group (168.2 ± 31.1 min) (p = 0.001). The application of Cox regression analysis found that the regional lymph node metastases were of significant value for disease-free survival (DSF), and the nodal status and recurrence presence—for overall survival (OS). Type of surgical procedure did not influence DSF, as well as OS. RARH has been established to be a safe procedure with proven advantages in regard to operative time and hospital stay. The absence of significant differences in DSF and OS is a substantial reason to continue, from an oncologic point of view, the application of this method on patients with T1в1 cervical cancer.
Robot-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: Review of Surgical and Oncological Outcomes
ISRN Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2011
Robot-assisted procedures are being increasingly incorporated in gynaecologic oncology. Several studies have confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy for selected patients with early-stage cervical cancer. It has been demonstrated that robotic radical hysterectomy offers an advantage over other surgical approaches with regard to operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay. Also initial evidences concerning oncological outcomes seem to confirm the equivalence to traditional open technique. Despite the fact that costs of robotic system are still high, they could be partially offset by several health-related and social benefits: less pain, faster dismissal, and return to full activity than other surgical approaches. The development of robotic technology may facilitate the spread of minimally invasive surgery in gynaecological oncology, overcoming some drawbacks of laparoscopic technique for challenging intervention such as radical hysterectomy. Further studies are needed to evaluate overall and disease-free survival of this technique and associated morbidity after adjuvant therapies.
Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2017
To compare the clinical and oncologic outcomes of Robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) in patients with cervical carcinoma. Long term follow-up in a prospective study between March 2010 to March 2016. Oncological referral center, department of gynecology and obstetrics of Alessandro Manzoni Hospital, department of gynecology, University of San Gerardo Monza, Milan. 52 patients with cervical carcinoma, matched by age, body mass index, tumor size, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, comorbidity, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, histology type, and tumor grade to obtain homogeneous samples. Patients with FIGO stage IA2 or IB1 with a tumor size less than or equal to 2 cm underwent RR type B. RR-Type C1 was performed in stage IB1, with a tumor size larger than 2 cm, or in patients previously treated with NACT (IB2). In all cases Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed for the treatment of cervical cancer. Surgical t...
Scientific Reports
Recent evidence has shown an increase in recurrence and a decrease in overall survival in patients treated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) open techniques (ORH). In addition, several high quality trials were recently published regarding the laparoscopic treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought out to reassess the recurrence rates, overall survival, complications and outcomes associated with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) techniques against open techniques (ORH) when robotic assisted techniques were excluded. We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.Gov and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We included all studies that compared with early stage cervical cancer receiving LRH compared with ORH. We included randomized clinical trials, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort trials. We included studies that included LRH and RRH as long as...
Oncologic and Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 2018
Objective: In view of the recent controversy concerning the use of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy as primary treatment for early stage cervical cancer, this study compared the survival and perioperative outcomes in a cohort of patients who underwent radical hysterectomy either by laparotomy or by robotics. Methods: This retrospective study compared all consecutive patients with early stage cervical cancer since the beginning of the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at the Jewish General Hospital in 2003, who underwent robotic radical hysterectomy (n = 74) with a cohort of all consecutive patients from the immediate past who underwent open radical hysterectomy (n = 24) for early stage cervical cancer. All patients were treated at the Jewish General Hospital in Montr eal (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2). Results: The median follow-up time for the robotic group was 46 months. During that time, 7% and 17% of patients in the robotic group and the laparotomy group had disease recurrence, respectively (P = 0.12). Cox multivariate regression showed no statistically significant effect of surgical approach on overall survival (hazard ratio 1.50, P = 0.63) or on progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.29, P = 0.07). Patients in the robotic cohort had significantly shorter median hospital stays (1 day vs. 7 days, P < 0.001), and their overall incidence of postoperative complications was lower (13% vs. 50%, P < 0.001). Median estimated blood loss for robotics was also significantly lower (82 mL vs. 528 mL, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Based on the data on a limited number of patients in a Canadian context, robotic radical hysterectomy did not lead to worse oncologic outcomes and was associated with improved short-term surgical outcomes. One might consider the evaluation of more personalized surgical decision making.
Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2020
The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of institutional surgical experience on recurrence following robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for early stage cervical cancer. All women in Sweden who underwent an RRH for stage IA2-IB1 cervical cancer at tertiary referral centers from its implementation in December 2005 until June 2017 were identified using a Swedish nationwide register and local hospital registers. Registry data were controlled by a chart review of all women. Recurrence rates and patterns of recurrence were compared between early and late (≤50 vs. >50 procedures) institutional series. Six hundred and thirty-five women were included. Regression analysis identified a lower risk of recurrence with increased experience but without a clear cut off level. Among the 489 women who did not receive adjuvant radio chemotherapy (RC-T), the rate of recurrence was 3.6% in the experienced cohort (>50 procedures) compared to 9.3% in the introductory cohort (p < 0.05). Th...
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, 2008
Study Objective: Cervical cancer is a significant health problem in countries of the developing world. Although case series suggest advantages of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) compared with total abdominal radical hysterectomy (TARH), no randomized controlled trial is currently available to establish TLRH as the new standard treatment. In this study, TLRH or total robotic radical hysterectomy (TRRH) will be performed without a vaginally assisted portion of the procedure. Design: A biphasic randomized controlled trial was designed to test feasibility of recruitment and equivalence in regard to disease-free survival (Canadian Task Force classification I). Setting: Tertiary referral hospital. Patients: Patients with histologically confirmed invasive squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the cervix, stage IA1 (with lymphovascular space invasion), IA2, and IB1 are eligible. Interventions: During the first phase, 100 patients will be randomized (1:1) to receive either TLRH/TRRH or TARH, with the primary end point being the rate of enrollment. During the second phase, recruitment will be extended by another 640 patients in a 1:1 TLRH/TRRH:TARH allocation, to determine equivalence with respect to disease-free survival with 80% power and a 5 0.05. Measurements and Main Results: Equivalence will be assumed if the difference in disease-free survival does not exceed 7% at 4 years. Secondary outcomes include treatment-related morbidity, costs and cost effectiveness, patterns of recurrence, quality of life, pelvic floor function, feasibility of intraoperative sentinel node sampling, and overall survival. All data from this multicenter study will be entered using online electronic case report forms, allowing real-time assessment of data completeness and patient follow-up. Conclusion: This prospective trial aims to show the equivalence of a TLRH/TRRH versus TARH approach for patients with early stage cervical cancer following a 2-phase protocol. This trial was developed and designed with the input and approval of the members of the Gynecologic Oncology Committee from the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.