Comparing oncological outcomes of robotic versus open surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer.

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.