Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of perioperative outcomes and technical features using da Vinci Si and Xi robotic platforms for early stages of endometrial cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We directly compared perioperative outcomes and technical features between previous da Vinci Si and the newer Xi robotic platform during total hysterectomy plus salpingo-oophorectomy with or without lymphadenectomy for early-stage endometrial cancer. We retrospectively analyzed147 patients with histological confirmation of endometrial carcinoma stage IA: grade 1–2, 3 and stage IB: grade 1–2 who underwent surgery with da Vinci Si or Xi system between January 2016 and December 2018. Perioperative data, technical features and postoperative complications were considered. 91 patients underwent surgery with the Si system and 56 with the Xi system. Docking time using the Xi system was significantly shorter (p < 0.002), while overall operating time was similar. There were no significant differences in the number of harvested lymph nodes, conversion rate, mean hospital stay, complications, and technical aspects between the two groups. Our study detected similar perioperative outcomes and the trend toward shorter docking and operating time for Xi over Si robot.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Advincula AP, Song A (2007) The role of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 19(4):331–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Advincula AP, Wang K (2009) Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(3):291–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shi G, Lu D, Liu Z, Liu D, Zhou X (2014) WITHDRAWN: Robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014(12):CD008640. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008640

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Scott DJ (2011) Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 25(7):2141–2146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Simoncini T et al (2016) Robotic-assisted apical lateral suspension for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: surgical technique and perioperative outcomes. Surg Endosc 30(12):5647–5655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kho RM (2011) Comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopy versus conventional laparoscopy on skill acquisition and performance. Clin Obstet Gynecol 54(3):376–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Janda M et al (2010) Quality of life after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for stage I endometrial cancer (LACE): a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 11(8):772–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Scalici J et al (2015) The trend towards minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for endometrial cancer: an ACS-NSQIP evaluation of surgical outcomes. Gynecol Oncol 136(3):512–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Maenpaa M et al (2015) Implementing robotic surgery to gynecologic oncology: the first 300 operations performed at a tertiary hospital. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94(5):482–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lim PC, Kang E, Park DH (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(3):413–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boggess JF et al (2008) A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(4):360e1–360e9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jorgensen SL et al (2019) Survival after a nationwide introduction of robotic surgery in women with early-stage endometrial cancer: a population-based prospective cohort study. Eur J Cancer 109:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jorgensen SL et al (2019) New insights into early recovery after robotic surgery for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 153(2):271–276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Morelli L et al (2017) Use of the new da Vinci Xi(R) during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da Vinci Si(R). Int J Med Robot 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1728

  15. Morelli L et al (2018) Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: case-matched comparison of short-term surgical and functional outcomes between the da Vinci Xi and Si. Surg Endosc 32(2):589–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Protyniak B, Jorden J, Farmer R (2018) Multiquadrant robotic colorectal surgery: the da Vinci Xi vs Si comparison. J Robot Surg 12(1):67–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Patel MN, Aboumohamed A, Hemal A (2015) Does transition from the da Vinci Si to Xi robotic platform impact single-docking technique for robot-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy? BJU Int 116(6):990–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abdel Raheem A et al (2017) Da Vinci Xi and Si platforms have equivalent perioperative outcomes during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: preliminary experience. J Robot Surg 11(1):53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Clavien PA et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shafer A, Boggess JF (2008) Robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging and radical hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system. Gynecol Oncol 111(2 Suppl):S18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Coronado PJ et al (2012) Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 165(2):289–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Corrado G et al (2015) Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in the management of endometrial cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 41(8):1074–1081

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. ElSahwi KS et al (2012) Comparison between 155 cases of robotic vs. 150 cases of open surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 124(2):260–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wright JD et al (2016) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 34(10):1087–1096

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lowe MP et al (2009) A multiinstitutional experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 114(2 Pt 1):236–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jorgensen SL et al (2019) Nationwide introduction of minimally invasive robotic surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer and its association with severe complications. JAMA Surg 154(6):530–538. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.5840

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Roma, 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy

    Andrea Giannini, Elisa Malacarne, Claudia Sergiampietri, Paolo Mannella, Alessandra Perutelli, Vito Cela & Tommaso Simoncini

  2. Multidisciplinary Center of Robotic Surgery, University Hospital Cisanello, Pisa, Italy

    Franca Melfi

  3. Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Francavilla Fontana Hospital, Francavilla Fontana, Italy

    Massimo Stomati

Authors
  1. Andrea Giannini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elisa Malacarne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claudia Sergiampietri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paolo Mannella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alessandra Perutelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vito Cela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Massimo Stomati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Franca Melfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tommaso Simoncini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AG, TS and VC have designed and developed the study and participated in the literature review. Data collection and analysis were performed by EM and CS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by EM and AG, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. AP, FM, MS and PM have contributed to the manuscript drafting and critically revised the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tommaso Simoncini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Andrea Giannini, Elisa Malacarne, Claudia Sergiampietri, Paolo Mannella, Alessandra Perutelli, Vito Cela, Massimo Stomati, Franca Melfi, and Tommaso Simoncini declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giannini, A., Malacarne, E., Sergiampietri, C. et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes and technical features using da Vinci Si and Xi robotic platforms for early stages of endometrial cancer. J Robotic Surg 15, 195–201 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01091-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01091-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation