Robotic approach for cervical cancer: Comparison with laparotomy

• Published in: Gynecologic oncology Vol. 115; no. 1; pp. 60 - 64
• Main Authors: Maggioni, Angelo, Minig, Lucas, Zanagnolo, Vanna, Peiretti, Michele, Sanguineti, Fabio, Bocciolone, Luca, Colombo, Nicoletta, Landoni, Fabio, Roviglione, Giovanni, Vélez, Jorge Ivan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 2009
• Subjects: Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine; Obstetrics and Gynecology; Robotic surgery; Laparotomic radical hysterectomy; Robotic radical hysterectomy; Cervical cancer
• ISSN: 0090-8258
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.06.039

Abstract Objective To compare the surgical outcome of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. Methods A prospective collection of data of all RRH for stages IA2–IIA cervical cancer was done. The procedures were performed at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, between November 1, 2006 and February 1, 2009. Results A total of 40 RRH were analyzed, and compared with 40 historic ARH cases. The groups did not differ significantly in body mass index, stage, histology, or intraoperative complications, but in age ( p = 0.035). The mean (SD) operative time was significantly shorter for ARH than RRH, 199.6 (65.6) minutes and 272.27 (42.3) minutes respectively ( p = 0.0001). The mean (SD) estimated blood loss (EBL) was 78 ml (94.8) in RRH group and 221.8 ml (132.4) in ARH. This difference was statistically significant in favor of RRH group ( p < 0.0001). Statistically significantly higher number of pelvic lymph nodes was removed by ARH than by RRH, mean (SD) 26.2 (11.7) versus 20.4 (6.9), p < 0.05. Mean length of stay was significantly shorter for the RRH group (3.7 versus 5.0 days, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in terms of postoperative complications between groups. Conclusion This study shows that RRH is safe and feasible. However, a comparison of oncologic outcomes and cost-benefit analysis is still needed and it has to be carefully evaluated in the future.