Robot assisted laparoscopic staging of endometrial cancer – comparison with standard laparotomy

Česká verzia

Authors: R. Pilka; R. Marek; Š. Táborská; P. Dzvinčuk
Authors place of work: Porodnicko-gynekologická klinika, Lékařská fakulta, Palackého univerzita, FN, Olomouc, přednosta prof. R. Pilka, M. D., Ph. D.
Published in the journal: Ceska Gynekol 2011; 76(6): 462-468
Category: Original Article

Summary

Objective:
To describe our initial experience with robotically assisted laparoscopic staging of endometrial cancer patients as compared with previous cases staged by standard laparotomy.

Design:
Original article.

Setting:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc.

Methods:
The first twenty patients with early stage endometrial cancer underwent hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic/paraaortic lymphadenectomy using four-armed da Vinci S HD surgical system (TRH) and were compared with previous 20 cases of staging procedures as done by laparotomy (TAH). Age, body mass index (BMI), clinical stage of disease, grade, histopathology, nodal yield, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, recovery room stay and analgesic needs were documented and compared.

Results:
Mean age of patients in the robotic surgery group was 64,55 (47–85) years and in the laparotomy group 62,95 years (35–79). BMI was 27,45 (19–34) in TRH and 32,2 (26–55) in TAH group. There was no difference in FIGO stage, grade and histopathology between both groups. Node yield was slightly higher in TRH (16,95) than in TAH (14,9) group. Operative time was 262,25 min. (170–390) for TRH and 141,6 min. (97–175) for TAH. Estimates of blood loss were 102 (10–300) ml in the robotic surgery group and 352,5 (200–500) ml for TAH group. The average hospital stay was longer for the laparotomy than the robot group (8,75 vs. 7,20 days respectively). There was one conversion to laparotomy in TRH group. Within the „learning curve“ gradually shortening operation time, recovery time and lowering blood loss were observed with number of performed robotic operations.

Conclusion:
Robotic hysterectomy and staging is associated with lower blood loss, lower use of narcotics and shorter hospital stay than standard laparotomy during „learning curve“ period.

Key words:
daVinci, endometrial cancer, robot, laparotomy, staging.

Zdroje

1. Abu-Rustum, NR., et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy using the argon-beam coagulator: pilot data and comparison to laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol, 2003, 91, p. 402–409.

2. Ahlering, TE., et al. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol, 2003, 170, p. 1738–1741.

3. Bell, MC., et al. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol, 2008, 111, p. 407–411.

4. Beste, TM., et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy utilizing a robotic surgical systém. JSLS, 2005, 9, p. 13–15.

5. Boggess, JF., et al. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2008, 199, p. 360 e1–9.

6. Cibula, D., et al. Onkogynekologie, 1. ed. Praha: Grada, 2009, 616 s.

7. Cowles, TA., et al. Comparison of clinical and surgical-staging in patients with endometrial carcinoma. Obstet Gynecol, 1985, 66, p. 413–416.

8. Creasman, WT., et al. Surgical pathologic spread patterns of endometrial cancer. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer, 1987, 60, p. 2035–2041.

9. DeNardis, SA., et al. Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2008, 111, p. 412–417.

10. Field, JB., et al. Computer-enhanced robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Surg Endosc, 2007, 21, p. 244–246.

11. Fiorentino, RP., et al. Pilot study assessing robotic laparoscopic hysterectomy and patient outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2006, 13, p. 60–63.

12. Fleming, ND., et al. Analgesic and antiemetic needs following minimally invasive vs open staging for endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 204, p. 65 e1–6.

13. Hernandez, E. ACOG Practice Bulletin number 65: management of endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol, 2006, 107, p. 952; author reply 952–953.

14. Hoekstra, AV., et al. The impact of robotics on practice management of endometrial cancer: transitioning from traditional surgery. Int J Med Robot, 2009, 5, p. 392–397.

15. Childers, JM., et al. Laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic malignancies. Obstet Gynecol, 1993, 82, p. 741–747.

16. Jemal, A., et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin, 2009, 59, p. 225–249.

17. Kohler, C., et al. Introduction of transperitoneal lymphadenectomy in a gynecologic oncology center: analysis of 650 laparoscopic pelvic and/or paraaortic transperitoneal lymphadenectomies. Gynecol Oncol, 2004, 95, p. 52–61.

18. Lowe, MP., et al. A multiinstitutional experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 114, p. 236–243.

19. Macků, F., et al. Kompendium gynekologických operací, 1. ed. Praha: Grada, 1995, 600 s.

20. Marchal, F., et al. Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign and oncologic pathologies: initial clinical experience with 30 patients. Surg Endosc, 2005, 19, p. 826–831.

21. Mikuta, JJ. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging of endometrial cancer 1988. Cancer, 1993, 71, p. 1460–1463.

22. Paley, PJ., et al. Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: analysis of first 1000 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2011.

23. Reynolds, RK., Advincula, AP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg, 2006, 191, p. 555–560.

24. Reynolds, RK., et al. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic staging of gynecologic malignancies. JSLS, 2005, 9, p. 149–158.

25. Tozzi, R., et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in endometrial cancer: first analysis of survival of a randomized prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2005, 12, p. 130–136.

26. Veljovich, DS., et al. Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2008, 198, p. 679 e1–9; discussion 679 e9–10.

27. Wattiez, A., et al. The learning curve of total laparoscopic hysterectomy: comparative analysis of 1647 cases. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 2002, 9, p. 339–345.