Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 3/2017

01-09-2017 | Original Article

Clinical comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy procedures for endometrial cancer patients

Authors: Lynette Johnson, W. Douglas Bunn, Loan Nguyen, Jessica Rice, Minakshi Raj, Mary J. Cunningham

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

The goal of this study was to compare outcomes for robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy procedures for endometrial cancer as well as to investigate whether specific patient demographic, comorbidity, and severity variables were associated with the type of hysterectomy performed. A retrospective review was conducted of hysterectomy procedures for patients discharged from October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2012. Preoperative characteristics included age, BMI, number of past abdominal surgeries, and comorbidities. Intraoperative and postoperative characteristics included uterine weight and diameter, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, lymph-vascular space involvement, FIGO stage and tumor grade. Outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, conversion to open, other intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmissions within 30 days and lymph node yield. The robotic and laparoscopic cohorts show no significant differences in patient or tumor characteristics, while the open cases represent patients with increased complexity. In general, laparoscopic cases were shorter than robotic and open cases. Laparoscopic cases had fewer conversions to open than robotic cases. Robotic and open cases had significantly higher lymph node yield than laparoscopic cases. The reduction in surgical time and conversion rates in the laparoscopic cohort may be related to the reduction in node dissection performed.
Literature
4.
go back to reference O’Neill M, Moran PS, Teljeur C, O’Sullivan OE, O’Reilly BA, Hewitt M, Flattery M, Mairin Ryan (2013) Robot-assisted hysterectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287:907–918CrossRefPubMed O’Neill M, Moran PS, Teljeur C, O’Sullivan OE, O’Reilly BA, Hewitt M, Flattery M, Mairin Ryan (2013) Robot-assisted hysterectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287:907–918CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Wechter ME, Mohd J, Magrina JF, Cornella JL, Magtibay PM, Wilson JR, Kho RM (2014) Complications in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery according to case type: a 6-year retrospective cohort study using Clavien–Dindo classification. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:844–850. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.016 CrossRefPubMed Wechter ME, Mohd J, Magrina JF, Cornella JL, Magtibay PM, Wilson JR, Kho RM (2014) Complications in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery according to case type: a 6-year retrospective cohort study using Clavien–Dindo classification. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:844–850. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jmig.​2014.​03.​016 CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Gala RB, Margulies R, Steinberg A, Murphy M, Lukban J, Jeppson P, Aschkenazi S, Olivera C, South M, Lowenstein L, Schaffer J, Balk E, Sung V (2014) Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:353–361. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010 CrossRefPubMed Gala RB, Margulies R, Steinberg A, Murphy M, Lukban J, Jeppson P, Aschkenazi S, Olivera C, South M, Lowenstein L, Schaffer J, Balk E, Sung V (2014) Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:353–361. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jmig.​2013.​11.​010 CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Van der Schatte Oliver RH, van’t Hullenaar CDP, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1365–1371. doi:10.1007/s00464-008-0184-6 CrossRef Van der Schatte Oliver RH, van’t Hullenaar CDP, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1365–1371. doi:10.​1007/​s00464-008-0184-6 CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrel L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, Fowler WC (2008) A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(4):360.e1–9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.012 Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrel L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, Fowler WC (2008) A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(4):360.e1–9. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ajog.​2008.​08.​012
12.
Metadata
Title
Clinical comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy procedures for endometrial cancer patients
Authors
Lynette Johnson
W. Douglas Bunn
Loan Nguyen
Jessica Rice
Minakshi Raj
Mary J. Cunningham
Publication date
01-09-2017
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0651-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Journal of Robotic Surgery 3/2017 Go to the issue