Manolis Nikolopoulos, Mark Pickering, Khaing Thu Thu, Vasileios Mitsopoulos, Anastasios Pandraklakis, Jonathan Lippiatt, Anni Innamaa, Ioannis Biliatis
{"title":"Comparing oncological outcomes of robotic versus open surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer.","authors":"Manolis Nikolopoulos, Mark Pickering, Khaing Thu Thu, Vasileios Mitsopoulos, Anastasios Pandraklakis, Jonathan Lippiatt, Anni Innamaa, Ioannis Biliatis","doi":"10.1007/s00404-024-07709-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Robotic surgery has been incorporated in the treatment of endometrial cancer, with evidence suggesting that minimal access surgery offers advantages over laparotomy including less blood loss, lower rate of perioperative complications, and accelerated postoperative recovery. The laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer (LACC) study has recently demonstrated inferior survival outcomes in cervical cancer patients treated with minimal access surgery including robotic surgery. It is, therefore, imperative that further evaluation of the latter in endometrial cancer is performed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of clinical data was performed. We compared two different types of surgery performed for the treatment of FIGO stage 1 to 3 endometrial cancer; open surgery performed in the years 2013-2015 vs robotic surgery performed in 2017-2019, after the implementation of the robotic program in our institution. Main outcome measures were recurrence-free survival and overall survival, with secondary outcomes including surgical morbidity and postoperative recovery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We compared 123 patients who had open surgery with 104 patients who underwent robotic surgery. One case from the second group was converted to open surgery due to the inability to complete it robotically. After a median follow-up of 68 months, there was no difference in recurrence-free survival or overall survival between the two groups. Length of stay after an operation was significantly different with mean hospital stay of 1.6 days after robotic surgery and 5 days after open surgery (p = 0.001). No significant difference was identified in the rate of complications (p = 0.304).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our analysis has demonstrated that robotic surgery offers better perioperative outcomes without compromising the oncological safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":8330,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07709-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Robotic surgery has been incorporated in the treatment of endometrial cancer, with evidence suggesting that minimal access surgery offers advantages over laparotomy including less blood loss, lower rate of perioperative complications, and accelerated postoperative recovery. The laparoscopic approach to cervical cancer (LACC) study has recently demonstrated inferior survival outcomes in cervical cancer patients treated with minimal access surgery including robotic surgery. It is, therefore, imperative that further evaluation of the latter in endometrial cancer is performed.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of clinical data was performed. We compared two different types of surgery performed for the treatment of FIGO stage 1 to 3 endometrial cancer; open surgery performed in the years 2013-2015 vs robotic surgery performed in 2017-2019, after the implementation of the robotic program in our institution. Main outcome measures were recurrence-free survival and overall survival, with secondary outcomes including surgical morbidity and postoperative recovery.
Results: We compared 123 patients who had open surgery with 104 patients who underwent robotic surgery. One case from the second group was converted to open surgery due to the inability to complete it robotically. After a median follow-up of 68 months, there was no difference in recurrence-free survival or overall survival between the two groups. Length of stay after an operation was significantly different with mean hospital stay of 1.6 days after robotic surgery and 5 days after open surgery (p = 0.001). No significant difference was identified in the rate of complications (p = 0.304).
Conclusion: Our analysis has demonstrated that robotic surgery offers better perioperative outcomes without compromising the oncological safety.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1870 as "Archiv für Gynaekologie", Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics has a long and outstanding tradition. Since 1922 the journal has been the Organ of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. "The Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics" is circulated in over 40 countries world wide and is indexed in "PubMed/Medline" and "Science Citation Index Expanded/Journal Citation Report".
The journal publishes invited and submitted reviews; peer-reviewed original articles about clinical topics and basic research as well as news and views and guidelines and position statements from all sub-specialties in gynecology and obstetrics.