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
  • [41] Perioperative complications, readmissions, and hospital costs in conventional versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with concurrent sacrocolpopexy
    Andiman, S. E.
    Bui, A. H.
    Ascher-Walsh, C.
    Wright, J. D.
    Xu, X.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 224 (06) : S765 - S766
  • [42] Safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer in China
    Han, Liangliang
    Yan, Peijing
    Yao, Liang
    Liu, Rong
    Shao, Ruixue
    Liu, Jian
    Chen, Xiaohong
    Wang, Liuli
    Yang, Kehu
    Guo, Tiankang
    Wang, Hailin
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2019, 300 (01) : 153 - 160
  • [43] Safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer in China
    Liangliang Han
    Peijing Yan
    Liang Yao
    Rong Liu
    Ruixue Shao
    Jian Liu
    Xiaohong Chen
    Liuli Wang
    Kehu Yang
    Tiankang Guo
    Hailin Wang
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2019, 300 : 153 - 160
  • [44] Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy
    Sim, W. W.
    Alifah, A.
    Suharjono, H. N.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2012, 119 : 235 - 235
  • [45] Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for the management of endometrial cancer: A randomized clinical trial
    Ghezzi, F
    Cromi, A
    Bergamini, V
    Uccella, S
    Beretta, P
    Franchi, M
    Bolis, P
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2006, 13 (02) : 114 - 120
  • [46] Robotic assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer: The learning curve and beyond
    Holloway, R. W.
    Ahmad, S.
    DeNardis, S. A.
    Sultana, N.
    Bigsby, G. E., IV
    Pikaart, D. P.
    Finkler, N. J.
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2009, 112 (02) : S169 - S170
  • [47] Pneumothorax After Laparoscopic Robotic-Assisted Supracervical Hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy
    Kim, Ashley
    Geynisman-Tan, Julia
    Lewicky-Gaupp, Christina
    FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 23 (03): : E22 - E24
  • [48] Robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and vasovagal reflex: A case report
    Imai, Eriya
    Kamijyo, Sonoko
    Namekawa, Motoki
    Yokozuka, Motoi
    CLINICAL CASE REPORTS, 2022, 10 (04):
  • [49] Robotic-assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Gynecological Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Bahadur, Anupama
    Zaman, Rabia
    Mundhra, Rajlaxmi
    Mani, Kalaivani
    JOURNAL OF MID-LIFE HEALTH, 2024, 15 (02) : 91 - 98
  • [50] Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy versus Laparoscopic-Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy
    Song, Xue
    Waters, Heidi C.
    Pan, Katy
    Subramanian, Dhinagar
    Sedgley, Robert C.
    Raff, Gregory J.
    JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2011, 15 (04) : 460 - 470