Advertisement

Radical hysterectomy: A comparison of surgical approaches after adoption of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology

      Abstract

      Objective

      To compare intra-operative, postoperative and pathologic outcomes of three surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection over a three year time period during which all three approaches were used.

      Methods

      We reviewed all patients who underwent radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection between 1/2007 and 11/2010. Comparison was made between robotic, laparoscopic and open procedures in regard to surgical times, complication rates, and pathologic findings.

      Results

      A total of 95 radical hysterectomy procedures were performed during the study period: 30 open (RAH), 31 laparoscopic (LRH) and 34 robotic (RRH). There were no differences in age, body mass index or other demographic factors between the groups. Operative time was significantly shorter in the RAH compared to LRH and RRH (265 vs 338 vs 328 min, p=0.002). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in LRH and RRH compared with RAH (100 vs 100 vs 350 mL, p<0.001). Thirteen (24%) of RAH required blood transfusion. Conversion rates were higher in the LRH (16%) compared to RRH (3%) although not significant (p=0.10). Median length of stay was significantly shorter in RRH (1 day) vs LRH or RAH (2 vs 4 days, p<0.01). Pathologic findings were similar among all groups.

      Conclusion

      Minimally invasive surgery has made a significant impact on patients undergoing radical hysterectomy including decrease in blood loss and transfusion rates however; operative times were significantly longer compared to open radical hysterectomy. Our findings suggest that the robotic approach may have the added benefit of even shorter length of stay compared to traditional laparoscopy.

      Highlights

      • Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy was associated with decrease in blood loss and shorter hospital stay.
      • Robotic radical hysterectomy had lower conversions rates compared to laparoscopy.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gynecologic Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Canis M.
        • Mage G.
        • Wattiez A.
        • Pouly J.L.
        • Manhes H.
        • Bruhat M.A.
        Does endoscopic surgery have a role in radical surgery of cancer of the cervix uteri?.
        J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1990; 19: 921
        • Nezhat C.R.
        • Burrell M.O.
        • Nezhat F.R.
        • Benigno B.B.
        • Welander C.E.
        Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166: 864-865
        • Ramirez P.T.
        • Slomovitz B.M.
        • Soliman P.T.
        • Coleman R.L.
        • Levenback C.
        Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2006; 102: 252-255
        • Nezhat F.
        • Mahdavi A.
        • Nagarsheth N.P.
        Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy using harmonic shears.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006; 13: 20-25
        • Abu-Rustum N.R.
        • Gemignani M.L.
        • Moore K.
        • Sonoda Y.
        • Venkatraman E.
        • Brown C.
        • et al.
        Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy using the argon-beam coagulator: pilot data and comparison to laparotomy.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 91: 402-409
        • Gil-Moreno A.
        • Puig O.
        • Perez-Benavente M.A.
        • Diaz B.
        • Verges R.
        • De la Torre J.
        • et al.
        Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type II–III) with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early invasive cervical cancer.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005; 12: 113-120
        • Frumovitz M.
        • Ramirez P.T.
        • Greer M.
        • Gregurich M.A.
        • Wolf J.
        • Bodurka D.C.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic training and practice in gynecologic oncology among Society of Gynecologic Oncologists members and fellows-in-training.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2004; 94: 746-753
        • Mabrouk M.
        • Frumovitz M.
        • Greer M.
        • Sharma S.
        • Schmeler K.M.
        • Soliman P.T.
        • et al.
        Trends in laparoscopic and robotic surgery among gynecologic oncologists: a survey update.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 112: 501-505
        • Advincula A.P.
        • Song A.
        The role of robotic surgery in gynecology.
        Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 19: 331-336
        • Sert B.
        • Abeler V.M.
        • Dorum A.
        • Trope C.G.
        A new approach to treatment of early-stage cervical carcinoma: entire laparoscopic abdominal radical hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy without vaginal cuff closure–case reports.
        Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006; 27: 513-518
        • Boggess J.F.
        • Gehrig P.A.
        • Cantrell L.
        • Shafer A.
        • Ridgway M.
        • Skinner E.N.
        • et al.
        A case–control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: e1-e7
        • Sert B.
        • Abeler V.
        Robotic radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical carcinoma patients, comparing results with total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy cases. The future is now?.
        Int J Med Robot. 2007; 3: 224-228
        • Magrina J.F.
        • Kho R.M.
        • Weaver A.L.
        • Montero R.P.
        • Magtibay P.M.
        Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 109: 86-91
        • Maggioni A.
        • Minig L.
        • Zanagnolo V.
        • Peiretti M.
        • Sanguineti F.
        • Bocciolone L.
        • et al.
        Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 115: 60-64
        • Frumovitz M.
        • dos Reis R.
        • Sun C.C.
        • Milam M.R.
        • Bevers M.W.
        • Brown J.
        • et al.
        Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110: 96-102
        • Obermair A.
        • Gebski V.
        • Frumovitz M.
        • Soliman P.T.
        • Schmeler K.M.
        • Levenback C.
        • et al.
        A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008; 15: 584-588
        • Ramirez P.T.
        • Soliman P.T.
        • Schmeler K.M.
        • dos Reis R.
        • Frumovitz M.
        Laparoscopic and robotic techniques for radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 110: S21-S24
        • Walker J.L.
        • Piedmonte M.R.
        • Spirtos N.M.
        • Eisenkop S.M.
        • Schlaerth J.B.
        • Mannel R.S.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2.
        J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 5331-5336
        • Ko E.M.
        • Muto M.G.
        • Berkowitz R.S.
        • Feltmate C.M.
        Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 111: 425-430
        • Estape R.
        • Lambrou N.
        • Diaz R.
        • Estape E.
        • Dunkin N.
        • Rivera A.
        A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 113: 357-361