Safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer in China.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy (RH) with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) for the treatment of cervical cancer using multivariate regressions.

METHODS:

We designed a retrospective single-center study and consecutively collected patients with cervical cancer from February 2014 to October 2017. Data extraction was performed by two independent researchers. The surgical outcomes include operative time, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to a full diet, time to remove drainage tube, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication.

RESULTS:

A total of 152 patients with cervical cancer were collected in our study including 92 patients who underwent RH and 60 patients who underwent LH. Both groups have similar characteristics. The RH group showed shorter operative time (Coe - 42.89; 95% CI - 74.39 to 11.39; P = 0.008) and more number of lymph nodes (Coe 6.06; 95% CI 2.46-9.66; p = 0.001) than the LH group. As for the postoperative parameters, the RH group showed shorter time to remove drainage tube (Coe - 0.89; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.15; p = 0.019) and length of hospital stay (Coe - 6.40; 95% CI - 10.19 to - 2.95; p = 0.001). No significant difference was found between the groups in estimated blood loss (Coe 34.64; 95% CI - 33.08 to 102.37; p = 0.314), time to first flatus (Coe 0.11; 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.61; p = 0.652), time to a full diet (Coe - 0.24; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.06, p = 0.118), and postoperative complication (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.35-1.98; p = 0.685).

CONCLUSION:

The results from this study suggest that RH is safe and effective as LH but robotic surgery significantly contributed to the feasibility of alternative treatment options for cervical cancer patients.

• Authors: Liangliang Han, Peijing Yan, Liang Yao, Rong Liu, Ruixue Shao, Jian Liu, Xiaohong Chen, Liuli Wang, Kehu Yang, Tiankang Guo, Hailin Wang
• Journal: Archives of gynecology and obstetrics (Arch Gynecol Obstet) Vol. 300 Issue 1 Pg. 153-160 (07 2019) ISSN: 1432-0711 [Electronic] Germany
• PMID: 31006844 (Publication Type: Journal Article)

Topics

• China
• Female
• Humans
• Hysterectomy (methods)
• Laparoscopy (methods)
• Middle Aged
• Retrospective Studies
• Robotic Surgical Procedures (methods)
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms (pathology, surgery)