Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies.

IF 1.4 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT Pub Date : 2023-12-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.4103/gmit.gmit_9_23
Kiyoshi Aiko, Kiyoshi Kanno, Shiori Yanai, Mari Sawada, Shintaro Sakate, Masaaki Andou
{"title":"Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies.","authors":"Kiyoshi Aiko, Kiyoshi Kanno, Shiori Yanai, Mari Sawada, Shintaro Sakate, Masaaki Andou","doi":"10.4103/gmit.gmit_9_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) performed through conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) versus robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in patients with gynecologic malignancies.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Perioperative data, including operative time, estimated blood loss, and complications, were retrospectively analyzed in 731 patients with gynecologic malignancies who underwent transperitoneal PLND, including 460 and 271 in the CLS and RAS groups, respectively. Data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square test or Student's <i>t</i>-test as appropriate. <i>P</i> < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age was 50 ± 14 years and 53 ± 13 years in the RAS and CLS groups (<i>P</i> < 0.01), respectively. The mean body mass index was 23.4 ± 4.8 kg/m<sup>2</sup> and 22.4 ± 3.6 kg/m<sup>2</sup> in the RAS group and CLS groups (<i>P</i> < 0.01), respectively. The operative time, blood loss, and number of resected lymph nodes were 52 ± 15 min, 110 ± 88 mL, and 45 ± 17, respectively, in the RAS group and 46 ± 15 min, 89 ± 78 mL, and 38 ± 16, respectively, in the CLS group (all <i>P</i> < 0.01). The rate of Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications was 6.3% and 8.7% in the RAS and CLS groups, respectively (<i>P</i> = 0.17).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Shorter operative time and lower blood loss are achieved when PLND for gynecologic malignancies is performed through CLS rather than RAS. However, RAS results in the resection of a greater number of pelvic lymph nodes.</p>","PeriodicalId":45272,"journal":{"name":"Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT","volume":"13 1","pages":"37-42"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10936717/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy-GMIT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/gmit.gmit_9_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes for pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) performed through conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) versus robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in patients with gynecologic malignancies.

Materials and methods: Perioperative data, including operative time, estimated blood loss, and complications, were retrospectively analyzed in 731 patients with gynecologic malignancies who underwent transperitoneal PLND, including 460 and 271 in the CLS and RAS groups, respectively. Data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square test or Student's t-test as appropriate. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The mean age was 50 ± 14 years and 53 ± 13 years in the RAS and CLS groups (P < 0.01), respectively. The mean body mass index was 23.4 ± 4.8 kg/m2 and 22.4 ± 3.6 kg/m2 in the RAS group and CLS groups (P < 0.01), respectively. The operative time, blood loss, and number of resected lymph nodes were 52 ± 15 min, 110 ± 88 mL, and 45 ± 17, respectively, in the RAS group and 46 ± 15 min, 89 ± 78 mL, and 38 ± 16, respectively, in the CLS group (all P < 0.01). The rate of Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ III complications was 6.3% and 8.7% in the RAS and CLS groups, respectively (P = 0.17).

Conclusion: Shorter operative time and lower blood loss are achieved when PLND for gynecologic malignancies is performed through CLS rather than RAS. However, RAS results in the resection of a greater number of pelvic lymph nodes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
妇科恶性肿瘤患者盆腔淋巴结清扫机器人辅助手术与腹腔镜手术的比较
研究目的本研究旨在比较妇科恶性肿瘤患者通过传统腹腔镜手术(CLS)和机器人辅助手术(RAS)进行盆腔淋巴结清扫(PLND)的手术效果:回顾性分析了731例接受经腹腔镜PLND的妇科恶性肿瘤患者的围手术期数据,包括手术时间、估计失血量和并发症,其中CLS组和RAS组分别为460例和271例。数据采用卡方检验(Chi-square test)或学生 t 检验(Student's t test)进行统计分析。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义:RAS组和CLS组的平均年龄分别为(50±14)岁和(53±13)岁(P<0.01)。RAS 组和 CLS 组的平均体重指数分别为 23.4 ± 4.8 kg/m2 和 22.4 ± 3.6 kg/m2 (P < 0.01)。RAS组的手术时间、失血量和切除淋巴结数量分别为(52±15)分钟、(110±88)毫升和(45±17)个,CLS组的手术时间、失血量和切除淋巴结数量分别为(46±15)分钟、(89±78)毫升和(38±16)个(均P<0.01)。RAS组和CLS组的Clavien-Dindo≥III级并发症发生率分别为6.3%和8.7%(P = 0.17):结论:通过 CLS 而非 RAS 进行妇科恶性肿瘤 PLND 可缩短手术时间并降低失血量。结论:通过 CLS 而非 RAS 进行妇科恶性肿瘤 PLND,手术时间更短,失血量更低,但 RAS 会导致切除更多的盆腔淋巴结。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
98
审稿时长
52 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Novel Technique of Laparoscopic Transabdominal Cerclage after a Mersilene Tape Erosion in a Prior Laparoscopic Radical Trachelectomy and Transvaginal Cerclage Patient. Comment on "Evaluation of the success of hysteroscopic uterine septum resection". Hysteroscopic Uterine Septum Resection: Is it a Successful Treatment for Infertile Patients? Laparoscopic Excision of Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy: An Optimum Management Option. Laparoscopic Posterior Pelvic Exenteration with Radical Vulvectomy for Intestinal-type Vulvar Adenocarcinoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1