scholarly journals Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (9) ◽  
pp. 1990-1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji-Chan Nie ◽  
An-Qi Yan ◽  
Xi-Shi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Surgical Outcomes ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Bowel Function ◽  
Lymph Node Yield ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Function Recovery ◽  
Node Yield

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) with traditional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in a large retrospective cohort of a total of 933 patients.MethodsWe have enrolled 100 patients into the RRH and 833 patients into the TLRH group. The surgical outcomes include operating time, blood loss, transfusion rate, pelvic lymph node yield, hospitalization days, duration of bowel function recovery, catheter removal before and after 3 weeks, conversion to laparotomy, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Follow-up results were also analyzed for all patients.ResultsBoth groups have similar patient and tumor characteristics but patients with a larger lesion size were preferably enrolled in the TLRH treatment group. The treatment with RRH was generally superior to TLRH with respect to operating time, blood loss, length of hospitalization, duration of bowel function recovery, and postoperative complications. On follow-up of patients, there were no relapses reported in the RRH group compared with 4% of relapse cases and 2.9% of deaths because of metastasis in the TLRH group. No conversion of laparotomy occurred in the RRH group. No significant difference was found with respect to intraoperative complications and blood transfusion between both groups.ConclusionsThe results from this study suggest that RRH is superior to TLRH with regard to surgical outcome and may pose a safe and feasible alternative to TLRH. The operating time and lymph node yield is acceptable. Our study is one of the largest single-center studies of surgical outcomes comparing RRH with TLRH during cervical cancer treatment and will significantly contribute to the safety of alternative treatment options for patients. Furthermore, the difference detected between TLRH and RRH group is further strengthened by the great expertise of the surgeon performing laparoscopic surgeries.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer Patients: A Matched-Case Comparative Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 1466-1473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tae-Hyun Kim ◽  
Chel Hun Choi ◽  
June-Kuk Choi ◽  
Aera Yoon ◽  
Yoo-Young Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Surgical Outcomes ◽  
Invasive Cervical Cancer ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
International Federation ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Gynecology And Obstetrics ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare initial surgical outcomes and complication rates of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).MethodsPatients diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I-IIA) who underwent RRH (n = 23) at Samsung Medical Center from January 2008 to May 2013 were compared with matched patients who underwent LRH (n = 69) during the same period. The 2 surgical groups were matched 3:1 for variables of age, body mass index, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, histological subtype, tumor size, and node positivity. All patient information and surgical and postoperative follow-up data were retrospectively collected.ResultsOperating time was significantly longer (317 vs 236 minutes; P < 0.001) in the RRH group compared with the LRH group but mean estimated blood loss was significantly reduced in the RRH group (200 vs 350 mL; P = 0.036). Intraoperative and postoperative complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups (4.3% for RRH vs 1.45% for LRH; P = 0.439). Recurrences were 2 (8.7%) in the RRH and 7 (10.1%) in the LRH group. The overall 3-year recurrence-free survival was 91.3% in RRH group and 89.9% in the LRH group (P = 0.778).ConclusionsAlthough operating time was longer in the RRH cases because of lesser experience on robotic platform, we showed that surgical outcomes and complication rate of RRH were comparable to those of LRH. In addition, surgical skills for LRH easily and safely translated to RRH in case of experienced laparoscopic surgeon.

Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy: an analysis of oncologic outcomes from Hospital Italiano (Argentina)

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 863-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Odetto ◽  
Maria Celeste Puga ◽  
Jose Saadi ◽  
Florencia Noll ◽  
Myriam Perrotta
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Adenosquamous Carcinoma ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Disease Free

BackgroundThe Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial demonstrated a higher rate of disease recurrence and worse disease-free survival in patients who underwent minimally invasive radical hysterectomy.ObjectivesTo evaluate surgical and oncological outcome of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy performed at Hospital Italiano in Buenos Aires, Argentina.MethodsThis retrospective study included all patients with cervical cancer, 2009 FIGO stage IA1, with lymphovascular invasion to IB1 (<4 cm) who underwent a laparoscopic radical hysterectomy between June 2010 and June 2015. Patients were eligible if they had squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma, and no lymph node involvement by imaging. Patients must have undergone a type C1 radical hysterectomy. Only patients who were treated by a laparoscopic approach were included. Patients were excluded if histopathology showed a component of neuroendocrine carcinoma before or after surgery; if they had synchronous primary tumors, history of abdominal or pelvic radiotherapy, or were operated on at an outside institution; and if they had only surgery and no follow-up in our institution. Relapse rate and disease-free survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsA total of 108 patients were evaluated. The median age was 41 years (range 27–70). Distribution of histologic sub-types was squamous carcinoma in 77 patients (71%), adenocarcinoma in 27 patients (25%), and adenosquamous carcinoma in four patients (4%). Ninety-nine patients (92%) had stage IB1 tumors and 58 (54%) patients had tumors ≤2 cm. The median surgical time was 240 min (range 190–290), the median estimated blood loss was 140 mL (range 50–500) and the transfusion rate was 3.7%. The median length of hospital stay was 2 days (range 1–11). The median follow-up time was 39 months (range 11–83). The global recurrence rate after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was 15% (16/108). According to tumor size, the recurrence rate was 12% in patients with tumors ≤2 cm (7/58) and 18% in patients with tumors >2 cm (9/50) (OR=0.76; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.22; p=0.62) The 3- and 5-year relapse rate was 17% (95% CI 11% to 27%). The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival was 81% (95% CI 71% to 88%) and 70% (95% CI 43% to 86%), respectively. Overall survival at 3 years was 87% (95% CI 76% to 93%).ConclusionThe recurrence rate after laparoscopic radical hysterectomy was 15%, and in tumors ≤2 cm it was 12%. The 3-year disease-free survival was 81%. Given these results our hospital has changed the approach to open radical hysterectomy.

Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for FIGO Stage IB and IIA Cervical Cancer With Tumor Diameter of 3 cm or Greater

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tae Wook Kong ◽  
Suk-Joon Chang ◽  
Jisun Lee ◽  
Jiheum Paek ◽  
Hee-Sug Ryu
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Figo Stage ◽  
Tumor Diameter ◽  
Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Stage Ib ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
The Mean

ObjectiveThere have been many comparative reports on laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) versus abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for early-stage cervical cancer. However, most of these studies included patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA2 and small (tumor diameter ≤2 or 3 cm) IB1 disease. The purpose of this study was to compare the feasibility, morbidity, and recurrence rate of LRH and ARH for FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater.Materials and MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 88 patients with FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater. All patients had no evidence of parametrial invasion and lymph node metastasis in preoperative gynecologic examination, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography–computed tomography, and they all underwent LRH or ARH between February 2006 and March 2013.ResultsAmong 88 patients, 40 patients received LRH whereas 48 underwent ARH. The mean estimated blood loss was 588.0 mL for the ARH group compared with 449.1 mL for the LRH group (P< 0.001). The mean operating time was similar in both groups (246.0 minutes in the ARH vs 254.5 minutes in the LRH group,P= 0.589). Return of bowel motility was observed earlier after LRH (1.8 vs 2.2 days,P= 0.042). The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter for the LRH group (14.8 vs 18.0 days,P= 0.044). There were no differences in histopathologic characteristics between the 2 groups. The mean tumor diameter was 44.4 mm in the LRH and 45.3 mm in the ARH group. Disease-free survival rates were 97.9% in the ARH and 97.5% in the LRH group (P= 0.818).ConclusionsLaparoscopic radical hysterectomy might be a feasible therapeutic procedure for the management of FIGO stage IB and IIA cervical cancer with tumor diameter of 3 cm or greater. Further randomized studies that could support this approach are necessary to evaluate long-term clinical outcome.

scholarly journals Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for patients with early cervical cancer: Initial experience in Cancer Institute

2019 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Isla-Ortiz ◽  
Rosa A. Salcedo-Hernández ◽  
Alberto M. León-Takahashi ◽  
Fabiola Estrada-Rivera ◽  
Salim A. Barquet-Muñoz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Surgical Outcomes ◽  
Initial Experience ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Early Cervical Cancer

Patterns of recurrence after laparoscopic versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 987-992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Bogani ◽  
Fabio Ghezzi ◽  
Luis Chiva ◽  
Baldo Gisone ◽  
Ciro Pinelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Recurrent Cervical Cancer ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Open Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Patterns Of Recurrence

ObjectiveRecent evidence has suggested that laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk of recurrence in comparison with open abdominal radical hysterectomy. The aim of our study was to identify patterns of recurrence after laparoscopic and open abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.MethodsThis a retrospective multi-institutional study evaluating patients with recurrent cervical cancer after laparoscopic and open abdominal surgery performed between January 1990 and December 2018. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥18 years old, radical hysterectomy (type B or type C), no recurrent disease, and clinical follow-up >30 days. The primary endpoint was to evaluate patterns of first recurrence following laparoscopic and open abdominal radical hysterectomy. The secondary endpoint was to estimate the effect of the primary surgical approach (laparoscopy and open surgery) in post-recurrence survival outcomes (event-free survival and overall survival). In order to reduce possible confounding factors, we applied a propensity-matching algorithm. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier model.ResultsA total of 1058 patients were included in the analysis (823 underwent open abdominal radical hysterectomy and 235 patients underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy). The study included 117 (14.2%) and 35 (14.9%) patients who developed recurrent cervical cancer after open or laparoscopic surgery, respectively. Applying a propensity matched comparison (1:2), we reduced the population to 105 patients (35 vs 70 patients with recurrence after laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy). Median follow-up time was 39.1 (range 4–221) months and 32.3 (range 4–124) months for patients undergoing open and laparoscopic surgery, respectively. Patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy had shorter progression-free survival than patients undergoing open abdominal surgery (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.97; p=0.005). Patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy were more likely to develop intrapelvic recurrences (74% vs 34%; p<0.001) and peritoneal carcinomatosis (17% vs 1%; p=0.005) than patients undergoing open surgery.ConclusionsPatients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy are at higher risk of developing intrapelvic recurrences and peritoneal carcinomatosis. Further evidence is needed in order to corroborate our findings.

scholarly journals Laparoskopska radikalna histerektomija z limfadenektomijo: naše izkušnje

2016 ◽  
Vol 85 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon Meglič
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Figo Stage ◽  
Pelvic Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Nerve Sparing ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Paraaortic Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Lymph Nodes Dissection

BackgroundThe second most common cancer in women up to 65 years of age is cervical cancer. Same cancer is the leading cause of death from gynaecological deseases worldwide.The standard procedure for cervical cancer treatment with FIGO stage including  IB2 is radical hysterectomy sec. Wertheim-Meigs-Novak with or without adnexa with radical pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy. In the last two decades has with the development of laparoscopy also developed  laparoscopic radical hysterectomy .Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes dissection was performed for the first time by Nezhat with coworkers in 1989.Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and/or paraaortic lymphnode dissection in treatement of cervical cancer including FIGO stage IB1 is performed at Dep Ob/Gyn UKC Ljubljana since 2013. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the morbidity and safety of the procedure. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with cervical cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical histerectomy with pelvic and/or paraaortic lymphadenectomy from April 2013 to May 2016. Results34 patient were included, 32 patients with CC FIGO stage IB1, 1 patient with CC FIGO stage IB2, 1 patient with CC FIGO stage IIB.There were four (11,8%) bladder lesions, all of them were corrected during the surgery, but no ureteral lesion! There was one (2,9%) surgical revision right after the surgery due to assumption of bleeding (though there was no active bleeding found).Three patients (8,8%) had permanent urinary dysfunction – retention. One patient (2,9%) had dehiscence of vaginal vault after 4 months (after sexual intercourse)There was no ureterovaginal/vesicovaginl fistula after surgery! The mean operating time was 2 hours 55 min, mean admission time after surgery was 8,7 days, mean blood loss during operation was 291 ml. ConclusionsLaparoscopic radical hysterectomy is the method of choice in cervical tumors including FIGO stage IB1.Percentage of bladder lesions is part of learning curve.Our goal in future is to decrease  the percentage of bladder lesions and to decrease the percentage of patients suffering from bladder dysfunction by using „nerve sparing“ technic.We expect, the same results for 5 year survival rate as with patients treated with classical radical hysterectomy.

Nerve-Sparing Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy: A Minimum 12 Months’ Follow-up Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 787-793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Bogani ◽  
Antonella Cromi ◽  
Stefano Uccella ◽  
Maurizio Serati ◽  
Jvan Casarin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Foley Catheter ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Nerve Sparing ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy ◽  
Beneficial Effects

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determinate whether the introduction of nerve-sparing (NS) procedure influences surgical and survival outcomes of cervical cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).MethodsData of consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive radical with or without NS surgery for cervical cancer were enrolled in the study.ResultsSixty-three patients (66%) who had LRH were compared with 33 women (34%) undergoing NS-LRH. Among the NS group, 19 patients (57.6%) had surgery via minilaparoscopy (using 3-mm instruments). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Patients undergoing NS-LRH had shorter operative time (210 vs 257 minutes; P = 0.005) and higher number of pelvic lymph nodes yielded (29 [26–38] vs 22 [8–49]; P < 0.001) than patient in the control group. No differences in blood loss, complications, and parametrial width were observed. Patients were catheterized with an indwelling Foley catheter for a median of 3.5 days (2–7 days) and 5.5 days (4–7 days) in NS and non-NS groups, respectively (P = 0.01). Voiding dysfunctions occurred in 1 patient (3%) and 12 patients (19%) who underwent NS-LRH and standard LRH, respectively (P = 0.03). No differences in 3-year disease-free survival (P = 0.72) and overall survival (P = 0.71) were recorded.ConclusionsThe beneficial effects (in terms of operative time and number of nodes harvested) of NS-LRH are likely determined by the expertise of the surgeon because NS approach was introduced after having acquired adequate background in conventional LRH. Our data show that in experienced hands NS-LRH is safe and feasible. Moreover, NS technique reduces catheterization time and the rate of postoperative urinary dysfunction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document