Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 3/2019

01-06-2019 | Original Article

A Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes in Uterine Cancer Surgery After the Introduction of Robotic-Assisted Surgery

Authors: Reshu Agarwal, Anupama Rajanbabu, Gaurav Goel, U. G. Unnikrishnan

Published in: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To compare the rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications of open and robotic-assisted surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer.

Methods

This retrospective study was performed at a single academic institution from January 2014 to February 2017 in the Department of Gynecology Oncology at Amrita Institute of Medical Science, Kerala, India. The study included patients with clinically early stage uterine malignancy undergoing open or robotic-assisted surgery. Data collected included clinicopathological factors, intraoperative data, length of hospital stay and intraoperative and postoperative (early and late and severity according to Clavien–Dindo classification). Morbidity was compared between two groups.

Results

The study included 128 patients, of whom 61 underwent open surgery and 67 underwent robotic-assisted surgery. Mean operative time (P = 0.112), mean estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), number of patients requiring blood transfusion (P < 0.001) and mean length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) were significantly lower in robotic group. None of the patients in robotic group experienced intraoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.010). The early postoperative complications, SSI (P < 0.001), infection (P = 0.002), and urinary complications (P = 0.030) and late postoperative complications lymphoedema (P = 0.002), vault-related complications (1.5% robotic vs. 6.6% open) and incisional hernia (none in robotic vs. 4.9% in open) were significantly lower in robotic group. Grade-II complications (Clavien–Dindo classification) were significantly lower in robotic group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Robotic-assisted surgical staging for uterine cancer is feasible and safe in terms of short-term outcomes and results in fewer complications and shorter hospital stay.
Literature
1.
go back to reference National Cancer Registry Programme. Three year report of population based cancer registries: 2012–2014. Bangalore: National Cancer Registry Programme; 2016. p. 114. National Cancer Registry Programme. Three year report of population based cancer registries: 2012–2014. Bangalore: National Cancer Registry Programme; 2016. p. 114.
2.
go back to reference National Cancer Registry Programme. Time trends in cancer incidence rates 1982–2010. Bangalore: National Cancer Registry Programme; 2013. p. 132. National Cancer Registry Programme. Time trends in cancer incidence rates 1982–2010. Bangalore: National Cancer Registry Programme; 2013. p. 132.
3.
go back to reference Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical Staging for uterine cancer: gynecologic oncology group LAP2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(7):695–700.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical Staging for uterine cancer: gynecologic oncology group LAP2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(7):695–700.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Chu L-H, Chang W-C, Sheu B-C. Comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional open method for surgical staging of endometrial carcinoma. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55:188–92.CrossRefPubMed Chu L-H, Chang W-C, Sheu B-C. Comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional open method for surgical staging of endometrial carcinoma. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55:188–92.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Lee C-L, Huang K-G, Wu PJ, et al. Long term survival outcome of laparoscopic staging surgery for endometrial cancer in Taiwanese experience. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53:57–61.CrossRefPubMed Lee C-L, Huang K-G, Wu PJ, et al. Long term survival outcome of laparoscopic staging surgery for endometrial cancer in Taiwanese experience. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53:57–61.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Mok ZW, Yong EL, Hui Low JJ, et al. Clinical outcomes in endometrial cancer care when the standard of care shifts from open surgery to robotics. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(5):819–25.CrossRefPubMed Mok ZW, Yong EL, Hui Low JJ, et al. Clinical outcomes in endometrial cancer care when the standard of care shifts from open surgery to robotics. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(5):819–25.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Lau S, Vankin Z, Ramana-Kumar AV, et al. Outcomes and cost comparison after introducing a robotic program for endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(4):717–24.CrossRefPubMed Lau S, Vankin Z, Ramana-Kumar AV, et al. Outcomes and cost comparison after introducing a robotic program for endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(4):717–24.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Api M, Kayatas S, Boza AT, et al. Surgical staging of early stage endometrial cancer: comparison between laparotomy and laparoscopy. World J Oncol. 2013;4(6):235–40.PubMed Api M, Kayatas S, Boza AT, et al. Surgical staging of early stage endometrial cancer: comparison between laparotomy and laparoscopy. World J Oncol. 2013;4(6):235–40.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Nezhat F, Apostol R, Vega M, et al. Perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic treatment of endometrial cancer. J Adenocarcinoma. 2016;1:1–7.CrossRef Nezhat F, Apostol R, Vega M, et al. Perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic treatment of endometrial cancer. J Adenocarcinoma. 2016;1:1–7.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Maenpaa MM, Nieminen K, Tomas EI, et al. Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:588.e1-7.CrossRef Maenpaa MM, Nieminen K, Tomas EI, et al. Robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:588.e1-7.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ran L, Jin J, Xu Y, et al. Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(9):e108361.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ran L, Jin J, Xu Y, et al. Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(9):e108361.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Chen S-H, Li Z-A, Huang R, et al. Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer staging: a meta-analysis. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55:488–94.CrossRefPubMed Chen S-H, Li Z-A, Huang R, et al. Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer staging: a meta-analysis. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55:488–94.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Guy MS, Sheeder J, Behbakht K, et al. Comparative outcomes in older and younger women undergoing laparotomy or robotic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214:350.e1-10.CrossRef Guy MS, Sheeder J, Behbakht K, et al. Comparative outcomes in older and younger women undergoing laparotomy or robotic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214:350.e1-10.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Coccolini F, Ansaloni L, Manfredi R, et al. Peritoneal adhesion index (PAI): proposal of a score for the “ignored iceberg” of medicine and surgery. World J Emerg Surg. 2013;8:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Coccolini F, Ansaloni L, Manfredi R, et al. Peritoneal adhesion index (PAI): proposal of a score for the “ignored iceberg” of medicine and surgery. World J Emerg Surg. 2013;8:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PLA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PLA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Seror J, Bats AS, Huchon C, et al. Laparoscopy versus robotics in surgical management of endometrial cancer: comparison of intraoperative and postoperative complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:120–5.CrossRefPubMed Seror J, Bats AS, Huchon C, et al. Laparoscopy versus robotics in surgical management of endometrial cancer: comparison of intraoperative and postoperative complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:120–5.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Lindfors A, Akesson A, Staf C, et al. Robotic versus open surgery for endometrial cancer in elderly patients: surgical outcome, survival and cost analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(4):692–9.CrossRefPubMed Lindfors A, Akesson A, Staf C, et al. Robotic versus open surgery for endometrial cancer in elderly patients: surgical outcome, survival and cost analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018;28(4):692–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Ulm MA, Gin DN, ElNaggar AC, et al. A comparison of outcomes following robotic-assisted staging laparotomy in patients with early stage endometrioid adenocarcinoma of uterus with uterine weight under 480 g. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2016;5:25–9.CrossRef Ulm MA, Gin DN, ElNaggar AC, et al. A comparison of outcomes following robotic-assisted staging laparotomy in patients with early stage endometrioid adenocarcinoma of uterus with uterine weight under 480 g. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2016;5:25–9.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Fuch Weizman N, Einarsson JI, Wang KC, et al. Vaginal cuff dehiscence: risk factor and associated morbidities. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2015;19(2):e2013.00351.CrossRef Fuch Weizman N, Einarsson JI, Wang KC, et al. Vaginal cuff dehiscence: risk factor and associated morbidities. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2015;19(2):e2013.00351.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Bush SH, Apte SM. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynaecological oncology. Cancer Control. 2015;22(3):307–13.CrossRefPubMed Bush SH, Apte SM. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynaecological oncology. Cancer Control. 2015;22(3):307–13.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes in Uterine Cancer Surgery After the Introduction of Robotic-Assisted Surgery
Authors
Reshu Agarwal
Anupama Rajanbabu
Gaurav Goel
U. G. Unnikrishnan
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer India
Published in
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0971-9202
Electronic ISSN: 0975-6434
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-018-1170-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 3/2019 Go to the issue