Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Feasibility and Safety of Robotic Surgery for Gynecologic Cancers

  • Manchana, Tarinee (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Sirisabya, Nakarin (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Vasuratna, Apichai (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Termrungruanglert, Wichai (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Tresukosol, Damrong (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University) ;
  • Wisawasukmongchol, Wirach (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University)
  • Published : 2014.07.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: To determine surgical outcomes, perioperative complications, and patient outcomes in gynecologic cancer patients undergoing robotic surgery. Materials and Methods: Surgical outcomes, including docking time, total operative time, console time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversion rate and perioperative complications were retrospectively reviewed in 30 gynecologic cancer patients undergoing robotic surgery. Patient outcomes included recovery time and patient satisfaction, as scored by a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0-10. Results: The operations included 24 hysterectomies with pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLD) and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy, four radical hysterectomies with PLD, and two radical trachelectomies with PLD. Mean docking time was $12.8{\pm}9.7min$, total operative time was $345.5{\pm}85.0min$, and console time was $281.9{\pm}78.6min$. These times were decreased in the second half of the cases. There was no conversion rate. Three intraoperative complications, including one external iliac artery injury, one bladder injury, and one massive bleeding requiring blood transfusion were reported. Postoperative complications occurred in eight patients, most were minor. Only one patient had port herniation that required reoperation. Mean hospital stay was $3.5{\pm}1.7days$, and recovery time was $14.2{\pm}8.1days$. Two-thirds of patients felt very satisfied and one-third felt satisfied; the mean satisfaction score was 9.4 +0.9. Two patients with stage III endometrial cancer developed isolated port site metastasis at five and 13 months postoperatively. Conclusions: Robotic surgery for gynecologic cancer appears to be feasible, with acceptable perioperative complication rate, fast recovery time and high patient satisfaction.

Keywords

References

  1. Barnett JC, Judd JP, Wu JM, et al (2010). Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol, 116, 685-93. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ee6e4d
  2. Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S (2008). Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol, 111, 407-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.022
  3. Cantrell LA, Mendivil A, Gehrig PA, Boggess JF (2010). Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience. Gynecol Oncol, 117, 260-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.012
  4. Gaia G, Holloway RW, Santoro L, et al (2010). Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol, 116, 1422-31. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f74153
  5. Galaal K, Bryant A, Fisher AD, et al (2012). Laparoscopyversus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 9, CD006655.
  6. Grabosch S, Xynos F (2013). Isolated port-site metastasis after robotic hysterectomy for stage IA endometrial adenocarcinoma. Obstet Gynecol, 122, 437-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182860c69
  7. Kornblith AB, Huang HQ, Walker JL, et al (2009). Quality of life of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing laparoscopic international federation of gynecology and obstetrics staging compared with laparotomy: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol, 27, 5337-42. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3529
  8. Kruijdenberg CB, van den Einden LC, Hendriks JC, Zusterzeel PL, Bekkers RL (2011). Robot-assisted versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer, a review. Gynecol Oncol, 120, 334-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.12.342
  9. Lim PC, Kang E, Park do H (2011). A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol 120, 413-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.034
  10. Liu H, Lu D, Wang L, et al (2012). Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, CD008978.
  11. Lonnerfors C, Bossmar T, Persson J (2013). Port-site metastases following robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for gynecological malignancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92, 1361-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12245
  12. Lowe MP, Johnson PR, Kamelle SA, et al (2009) A multiinstitutional experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol, 114, 236-43. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181af2a74
  13. Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM (2008). Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol, 109, 86-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.011
  14. Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Noble BN, Kho RM, Magtibay P (2011). Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol, 121, 100-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.045
  15. Mohammadzadeh N, Safdari R (2014). Robotic surgery in cancer care: opportunities and challenges. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15, 1081-3. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.3.1081
  16. Ndofor BT, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, et al (2011). Rate of port-site metastasis is uncommon in patients undergoing robotic surgery for gynecological malignancies. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 21, 936-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e3182174609
  17. Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, et al (2008). A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 15, 584-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2008.06.013
  18. Palomba S, Falbo A, Russo T, La Sala GB (2012). Port-site metastasis after laparoscopic surgical staging for endometrial cancer: a systematic review of the published and unpublished data. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 19, 531-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.03.023
  19. Ramirez PT, Adams S, Boggess JF, et al (2012). Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: a society of gynecologic oncology consensus statement. developed by the society of gynecologic oncology's clinical practice robotics task force. Gynecol Oncol, 124, 180-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.006
  20. Schreuder HW, Zweemer RP, van Baal WM, et al (2010). From open radical hysterectomy to robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: aspects of a single institution learning curve. Gynecol Surg, 7, 253-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-010-0572-5
  21. Seamon LG, Fowler JM, Richardson DL, et al (2009). A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 114, 162-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.04.017
  22. Sirisabya N, Manchana T, Worasethsin P, et al (2009). Is complete surgical staging necessary in clinically early stage endometrial carcinoma? Int J Gynecol Cancer, 19, 1057-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a8ba85
  23. Wang HL, Ren YF, Yang J, Qin RY, Zhai KH (2013). Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer; a meta-analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 2515-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.4.2515
  24. Yim GW, Kim SW, Nam EJ, Kim S, Kim YT (2013). Learning curve analysis of robot -assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: initial experience at a single institution. J Gynecol Oncol, 24, 303-12. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2013.24.4.303
  25. Yim GW, Kim YT (2012). Robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 24, 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e32834daebc

Cited by

  1. Comparison of Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes with Laparotomy, and Laparoscopic or Robotic Surgery for Women with Endometrial Cancer vol.16, pp.13, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.13.5483
  2. Surgeons’ physical discomfort and symptoms during robotic surgery: a comprehensive ergonomic survey study vol.31, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5160-y