Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer at a Regional Institution: A Retrospective Study

被引:1
|
作者
Hiratsuka, Daiki [1 ]
Tsuchiya, Akira [1 ]
Isono, Wataru [1 ]
Honda, Michiko [1 ]
Tsuchiya, Hiroko [1 ]
Matsuyama, Reiko [1 ]
Fujimoto, Akihisa [1 ]
Nishii, Osamu [1 ]
机构
[1] Teikyo Univ, Univ Hosp Mizonokuchi, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Sch Med, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 2138507, Japan
来源
关键词
laparoscopic hysterectomy; local facility; minimally invasive surgery; pelvic lymphadenectomy; robotic surgery; rural hospital; uterine corpus cancer; SURGERY; SURVIVAL; RECURRENCE;
D O I
10.31083/j.ceog5003061
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background: Minimally invasive surgeries, such as laparoscopic and robotic surgeries, have been the main treatment methods for stage I endometrial cancer instead of laparotomy. However, minimally invasive surgeries for malignant tumors have not yet been established in many rural hospitals or hospitals with few gynecologists. This study aimed to investigate whether laparoscopic or robotic surgery for stage I endometrial cancer is more sustainable and useful at a rural hospital where a single non-laparoscopic-specialized surgeon performs oncologic surgery and provides outpatient care. Methods: This retrospective case-control study was conducted at our hospital. The study enrolled 65 patients with endometrial cancer who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH) or total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH). We compared surgical outcomes such as patient background, operation time, blood loss, and other indices. Results: Exactly 34 patients underwent robotic surgery, and 31 underwent laparoscopic surgery. No severe adverse events required reoperation, conversion to laparotomy, or ureteral injury during either operation. The operation time decreased in patients who underwent robotic surgery compared with those who underwent laparoscopic surgery (193 (140-227) vs. 253 (219-287) min, p < 0.001). In addition, the blood loss volume decreased by half in patients who underwent robotic surgery compared to those who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Significantly more operations were completed by two operators rather than three operators at robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery (59% vs. 26%, p = 0.007). The hospitalization days were 1.5 days shorter in the robotic surgery group than in the laparoscopic surgery group (p < 0.001). Exactly 18 patients underwent robotic surgery with pelvic lymphadenectomy, and 26 underwent laparoscopic surgery with pelvic lymphadenectomy. Patients who underwent robotic surgery required less operation time than those who underwent laparoscopic surgery (226 (199-246) vs. 261 (236-287) min, p = 0.001). Conclusions: In the surgical treatment of stage I endometrial cancer, robotic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, and no obvious complications. This study proposes that robotic surgery is a promising solution for the sustainable introduction of minimally invasive surgery for stage I endometrial cancer in rural hospitals or hospitals with few gynecologists.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer
    Johansson, Cherynne Yuin Mun
    Chan, Felix Kwok Hee
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY-X, 2020, 8
  • [2] Robotic-Assisted Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Versus Conventional Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy
    Shashoua, Abraham R.
    Gill, Diana
    Locher, Stephen R.
    JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2009, 13 (03) : 364 - 369
  • [3] Comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy to total laparoscopic hysterectomy in terms of operational complications at a regional institution: A retrospective study
    Isono, Wataru
    Hiratsuka, Daiki
    Tsuchiya, Akira
    Fujimoto, Akihisa
    Nishii, Osamu
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY-X, 2023, 18
  • [4] Robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for women with endometrial cancer
    Herling, Suzanne Forsyth
    Moller, Ann M.
    Palle, Connie
    Grynnerup, Anja
    Thomsen, Thordis
    DANISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2017, 64 (03):
  • [5] Robotic-assisted hysterectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: Is it worth it?
    Oleksik, Tomasz
    Januszewski, Marcin
    Ziuzia-Januszewska, Laura
    Kudan, Michal
    Jakimiuk, Artur J.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2024, 293 : 253 - 253
  • [6] Comparison of conventional open hysterectomy and laparosopic hysterectomy to robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: a two year retrospective study
    Shaw, K.
    Goud, G. J.
    Kumar, M. B.
    Katari, A.
    Gottapu, V. K.
    Patel, P.
    Gupta, V. S.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2014, 121 : 66 - 66
  • [7] Cost comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus standard laparoscopic hysterectomy
    Winter M.L.
    Leu S.-Y.
    Lagrew D.C.
    Jr.
    Bustillo G.
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2015, 9 (4) : 269 - 275
  • [8] Surgical outcomes of conventional laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomy
    Gitas, Georgios
    Alkatout, Ibrahim
    Proppe, Louisa
    Werner, Nele
    Rody, Achim
    Hanker, Lars
    Pados, George
    Freytag, Damaris
    Sommer, Soteris
    Baum, Sascha
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY, 2021, 17 (03):
  • [9] Uterine Weight and Perioperative Morbidity in Robotic-Assisted versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy
    Pfeuti, Courtney K.
    Zhi, Lianteng
    Hoffman, Matthew K.
    JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2023, 27 (04)
  • [10] Classification of Postoperative Complications in Robotic-assisted Compared With Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer
    Barrie, Allison
    Freeman, Alexandra H.
    Lyon, Liisa
    Garcia, Christine
    Conell, Carol
    Abbott, Laura H.
    Littell, Ramey D.
    Powell, C. Bethan
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 23 (07) : 1181 - 1188