Cargando…

Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy, ranking first in female reproductive malignancies with more than 500000 new cases and 275000 deaths each year. Traditionally, open radical hysterectomy is considered the standard surgical procedure for the treatment of resectab...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Li, Liu, Li-Ping, Wen, Na, Qiao, Xiao, Meng, Yuan-Guang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6819296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31667168
http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v7.i20.3185
_version_ 1783463694962786304
author Chen, Li
Liu, Li-Ping
Wen, Na
Qiao, Xiao
Meng, Yuan-Guang
author_facet Chen, Li
Liu, Li-Ping
Wen, Na
Qiao, Xiao
Meng, Yuan-Guang
author_sort Chen, Li
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy, ranking first in female reproductive malignancies with more than 500000 new cases and 275000 deaths each year. Traditionally, open radical hysterectomy is considered the standard surgical procedure for the treatment of resectable cervical cancer. The latest guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society of Gynecological Oncology suggest that open surgery and laparoscopic surgery (using traditional laparoscopic or robotic techniques) are the main surgical approaches for radical hysterectomy for patients with stage IA2-IIA cervical cancer. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in abdominal surgery and has shown more beneficial effects. AIM: To analyse the perioperative conditions, complications, and short-term and long-term effects in patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) to compare their clinical efficacy, safety, and feasibility. METHODS: The perioperative data of patients undergoing RRH and LRH were extracted and collected from the database of surgical treatments for cervical cancer for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of the patients, 342 underwent LRH for cervical cancer, and 216 underwent RRH. The total complication rate was 9.65% (20 patients) in the RRH group and 17.59% (60 patients) in the LRH group. The complication rate was significantly lower in the RRH group than in the LRH group. There was no significant difference in the follow-up period (P = 0.658). The total recurrence rates were 15.7% and 12% in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively. The progression-free survival time was 28.91 ± 15.68 mo and 28.34 ± 15.13 mo in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.669). The overall survival (OS) rates were 92.13% and 94.45% in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.292). The OS time was 29.87 ± 15.92 mo and 29.41 ± 15.14 mo in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.732). The survival curves and the progression-free survival curves were not statistically significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.407 and 0.28, respectively). CONCLUSION: RRH is associated with significantly less operative time and blood loss than LRH. The two procedures have similar complication rates, OS, and progression-free survival time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6819296
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68192962019-10-30 Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer Chen, Li Liu, Li-Ping Wen, Na Qiao, Xiao Meng, Yuan-Guang World J Clin Cases Retrospective Study BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the most common gynecological malignancy, ranking first in female reproductive malignancies with more than 500000 new cases and 275000 deaths each year. Traditionally, open radical hysterectomy is considered the standard surgical procedure for the treatment of resectable cervical cancer. The latest guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society of Gynecological Oncology suggest that open surgery and laparoscopic surgery (using traditional laparoscopic or robotic techniques) are the main surgical approaches for radical hysterectomy for patients with stage IA2-IIA cervical cancer. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in abdominal surgery and has shown more beneficial effects. AIM: To analyse the perioperative conditions, complications, and short-term and long-term effects in patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) to compare their clinical efficacy, safety, and feasibility. METHODS: The perioperative data of patients undergoing RRH and LRH were extracted and collected from the database of surgical treatments for cervical cancer for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of the patients, 342 underwent LRH for cervical cancer, and 216 underwent RRH. The total complication rate was 9.65% (20 patients) in the RRH group and 17.59% (60 patients) in the LRH group. The complication rate was significantly lower in the RRH group than in the LRH group. There was no significant difference in the follow-up period (P = 0.658). The total recurrence rates were 15.7% and 12% in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively. The progression-free survival time was 28.91 ± 15.68 mo and 28.34 ± 15.13 mo in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.669). The overall survival (OS) rates were 92.13% and 94.45% in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.292). The OS time was 29.87 ± 15.92 mo and 29.41 ± 15.14 mo in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.732). The survival curves and the progression-free survival curves were not statistically significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.407 and 0.28, respectively). CONCLUSION: RRH is associated with significantly less operative time and blood loss than LRH. The two procedures have similar complication rates, OS, and progression-free survival time. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2019-10-26 2019-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6819296/ /pubmed/31667168 http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v7.i20.3185 Text en ©The Author(s) 2019. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
spellingShingle Retrospective Study
Chen, Li
Liu, Li-Ping
Wen, Na
Qiao, Xiao
Meng, Yuan-Guang
Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer
title Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer
title_full Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer
title_short Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer
title_sort comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer
topic Retrospective Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6819296/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31667168
http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v7.i20.3185
work_keys_str_mv AT chenli comparativeanalysisofroboticvslaparoscopicradicalhysterectomyforcervicalcancer
AT liuliping comparativeanalysisofroboticvslaparoscopicradicalhysterectomyforcervicalcancer
AT wenna comparativeanalysisofroboticvslaparoscopicradicalhysterectomyforcervicalcancer
AT qiaoxiao comparativeanalysisofroboticvslaparoscopicradicalhysterectomyforcervicalcancer
AT mengyuanguang comparativeanalysisofroboticvslaparoscopicradicalhysterectomyforcervicalcancer