Cargando…

Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) with traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in a large retrospective cohort of a total of 933 patients. METHODS: We have...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nie, Ji-Chan, Yan, An-Qi, Liu, Xi-Shi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5671798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28858908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001101
_version_ 1783276309899640832
author Nie, Ji-Chan
Yan, An-Qi
Liu, Xi-Shi
author_facet Nie, Ji-Chan
Yan, An-Qi
Liu, Xi-Shi
author_sort Nie, Ji-Chan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) with traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in a large retrospective cohort of a total of 933 patients. METHODS: We have enrolled 100 patients into the RRH and 833 patients into the TLRH group. The surgical outcomes include operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate, pelvic lymph node yield, hospitalization days, duration of bowel function recovery, catheter removal before and after 3 weeks, conversion to laparotomy, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Follow-up results were also analyzed for all patients. RESULTS: Both groups have similar patient and tumor characteristics but patients with a larger lesion size were preferably enrolled in the TLRH treatment group. The treatment with RRH was generally superior to TLRH with respect to operating time, blood loss, length of hospitalization, duration of bowel function recovery, and postoperative complications. On follow-up of patients, there were no relapses reported in the RRH group compared with 4% of relapse cases and 2.9% of deaths because of metastasis in the TLRH group. No conversion of laparotomy occurred in the RRH group. No significant difference was found with respect to intraoperative complications and blood transfusion between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggest that RRH is superior to TLRH with regard to surgical outcome and may pose a safe and feasible alternative to TLRH. The operating time and lymph node yield is acceptable. Our study is one of the largest single-center studies of surgical outcomes comparing RRH with TLRH during cervical cancer treatment and will significantly contribute to the safety of alternative treatment options for patients. Furthermore, the difference detected between TLRH and RRH group is further strengthened by the great expertise of the surgeon performing laparoscopic surgeries.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5671798
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56717982017-11-22 Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer Nie, Ji-Chan Yan, An-Qi Liu, Xi-Shi Int J Gynecol Cancer Surgeons Corner OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) with traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in a large retrospective cohort of a total of 933 patients. METHODS: We have enrolled 100 patients into the RRH and 833 patients into the TLRH group. The surgical outcomes include operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate, pelvic lymph node yield, hospitalization days, duration of bowel function recovery, catheter removal before and after 3 weeks, conversion to laparotomy, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Follow-up results were also analyzed for all patients. RESULTS: Both groups have similar patient and tumor characteristics but patients with a larger lesion size were preferably enrolled in the TLRH treatment group. The treatment with RRH was generally superior to TLRH with respect to operating time, blood loss, length of hospitalization, duration of bowel function recovery, and postoperative complications. On follow-up of patients, there were no relapses reported in the RRH group compared with 4% of relapse cases and 2.9% of deaths because of metastasis in the TLRH group. No conversion of laparotomy occurred in the RRH group. No significant difference was found with respect to intraoperative complications and blood transfusion between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggest that RRH is superior to TLRH with regard to surgical outcome and may pose a safe and feasible alternative to TLRH. The operating time and lymph node yield is acceptable. Our study is one of the largest single-center studies of surgical outcomes comparing RRH with TLRH during cervical cancer treatment and will significantly contribute to the safety of alternative treatment options for patients. Furthermore, the difference detected between TLRH and RRH group is further strengthened by the great expertise of the surgeon performing laparoscopic surgeries. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2017-11 2017-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5671798/ /pubmed/28858908 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001101 Text en Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of IGCS and ESGO. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Surgeons Corner
Nie, Ji-Chan
Yan, An-Qi
Liu, Xi-Shi
Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer
title Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer
title_full Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer
title_fullStr Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer
title_short Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer
title_sort robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy results in better surgical outcomes compared with the traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for the treatment of cervical cancer
topic Surgeons Corner
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5671798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28858908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001101
work_keys_str_mv AT niejichan roboticassistedradicalhysterectomyresultsinbettersurgicaloutcomescomparedwiththetraditionallaparoscopicradicalhysterectomyforthetreatmentofcervicalcancer
AT yananqi roboticassistedradicalhysterectomyresultsinbettersurgicaloutcomescomparedwiththetraditionallaparoscopicradicalhysterectomyforthetreatmentofcervicalcancer
AT liuxishi roboticassistedradicalhysterectomyresultsinbettersurgicaloutcomescomparedwiththetraditionallaparoscopicradicalhysterectomyforthetreatmentofcervicalcancer