Search

Objective: To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer., Methods: This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay., Results: A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06)., Conclusion: Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.

Objective: The primary aim is to evaluate the surgical and oncological outcome of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) plus pelvic lymphadenectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). The secondary aim is to compare the surgical and oncological results of RRH after NACT with a historical cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy or abdominal radical hysterectomy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy for LACC after NACT., Methods: We enrolled a total of 41 patients in this study with LACC undergoing RRH, who achieved a clinical partial or complete response to NACT. The surgical and oncological outcomes of 2 historical groups were compared: the laparoscopic group (41 patients) with the laparotomic group (43 patients)., Results: The median estimated blood loss, operative time, and length of hospital stay were statistically significant and in favor of the robotic group. No conversion to laparotomy in the robotic group was necessary. There were no significant differences between the 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates in the minimally invasive groups; nevertheless, the robotic group showed the same recurrence rate of laparoscopic in a short-interval follow-up., Conclusions: The robotic approach could be considered a feasible and safe alternative to other surgical options. Multicenter randomized clinical trials with longer follow-ups are necessary to evaluate the overall oncologic outcomes of this procedure.

Objective: To compare the surgical outcome of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) for the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)., Materials and Methods: From August 1st 2010 to July 1st 2012 a prospective data collection of women undergoing RRH for cervical cancer stage FIGO IB2 to IIB, after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, was conducted at National Cancer Institute "Regina Elena" of Rome. All patients deemed operable underwent class C1 RRH with pelvic lymphadenectomy within 4 weeks from the last chemotherapy cycle., Results: A total of 25 RRH were analyzed, and compared with 25 historic LRH cases. The groups did not differ significantly in body mass index, stage, histology, number of pelvic lymph nodes removed. The median operative time was the same in the two groups with 190 min respectively. The median estimated blood loss (EBL) was statistically significant in favor of RRH group. Median length of stay was shorter, for the RRH group (4 versus 6 days, P = 0.28). There was no significant difference in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications between groups but in the RRH group we observed a greater number of total complications compared to the control group., Conclusion: This study shows that RRH is safe and feasible in LACC after NACT compare to LRH. However, a comparison of oncologic outcomes and cost-benefit analysis is still needed and it has to be carefully evaluated in the future., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)