Outcome of robot-assisted surgery for stage IA endometrial cancer compared to open and laparoscopic surgeries: a retrospective study at a single institution

Ikebuchi, Ai; Komatsu, Hiroaki; Yamamoto, Koji; Okawa, Masayo; Hikino, Kohei; Iida, Yuki; Hosokawa, Masayo; Sawada, Mayumi; Kudoh, Akiko; Sato, Shinya; Harada, Tasuku; Taniguchi, Fuminori

doi:10.1007/s11701-024-01897-8

Cited by 3 publications

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Robotic cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: is there a benefit?

Sparkman,

Freudenberger,

Vudatha

et al. 2024

Surg Endosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Open cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a therapeutic option for the management of malignancies with peritoneal carcinomatosis and of peritoneal origin. Robotic surgery shows promise as a minimally invasive approach for select patients. We aimed to evaluate the differences in outcomes between robotic versus open CRS/HIPEC and hypothesized less morbidity and faster recovery in the robotic approach group. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study from our HIPEC database including all tumor origins. We included patients aged 18–89 years who underwent CRS/HIPEC for curative intent at a single institution between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2023. Patients were stratified by open versus robotic-assisted surgery. Mann–Whitney U and Fisher Exact tests were used to compare differences in patient characteristics and outcomes. Results A total of 111 patients underwent CRS/HIPEC for curative intent, with 95 (85.6%) cases performed open and 16 (14.4%) robotically. The groups were demographically similar, except patients undergoing robotic CRS/HIPEC had a significantly higher median income ($83,845 vs. $70,519, p < 0.001). Rate of comorbidities and cancer type, including appendiceal, colorectal, and ovarian, were the same. The peritoneal carcinomatosis index and completion of cytoreduction score were similar between groups. Robotic approach was associated with statistically significant lower estimated blood loss (113 vs. 400 mL, p < 0.001) and postoperative transfusions (6.3% vs. 23.2%, p = 0.036). Total complications, readmission rates, and 30-day mortality were similar among groups, but the robotic group had a significantly shorter length of stay (5.5 vs. 9 d., p < 0.001). Conclusion Robotic CRS/HIPEC holds promise to decrease intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusions, and hospital stay while providing similar immediate postoperative outcomes in select patients. These results should be validated in the setting of a prospective trial and effects on long-term oncologic outcomes should be investigated.

show abstract

Robotic cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: is there a benefit?

Sparkman,

Freudenberger,

Vudatha

et al. 2024

Surg Endosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Robot-assisted surgery for gynecological cancer

Liang,

Yu,

Fan

2024

Intelligent Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robotic Surgery versus Traditional Laparotomy: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer

Bhati,

Garg,

Vuppu

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM: This study aims to determine differences in surgical and survival outcomes for patients undergoing robotic surgeries versus laparotomies for early-stage endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: This study was conducted retrospectively from 1st January 2015 to 30th June 2021 on all patients with stage I or stage II EC (FIGO 2023 Staging), irrespective of histology. Primary objective was to compare 3-year Overall Survival (OS) and Recurrence Free Survival (RFS) between robotic versus laparotomy group. RESULTS: In a study of 297 patients, 81.5% underwent robotic surgeries and 18.5% underwent open surgeries. Median age was 47.5 years. Majority (81%) of the patients had Endometroid histology. Seventy percent of the cases had stage I, and 29.6% had stage II EC. Robotic group had significantly shorter hospital stay, blood loss and operative time (p < 0.05). After a median follow-up period of 36 months, 9 deaths occured in robotic group and no deaths in laparotomy group leading to a 3-year OS of 95.4% in robotic group and 100% in laparotomy group. RFS rates of 92.5% and 86.1% in robotic and laparotomy groups, respectively (p = 0.6). However, median time to recurrence was significantly shorter in open group than robotic group (28 versus 38 months respectively, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences between both groups were found in RFS and OS. Robotic surgeries have better surgical and equivalent oncological outcomes than open surgeries in stage I and II EC.

show abstract

Outcome of robot-assisted surgery for stage IA endometrial cancer compared to open and laparoscopic surgeries: a retrospective study at a single institution

Cited by 3 publications

References 13 publications

Robotic cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: is there a benefit?

Robotic cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: is there a benefit?

Robot-assisted surgery for gynecological cancer

Robotic Surgery versus Traditional Laparotomy: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About