Abstract
The aim of this work is to compare operative and anesthetic outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive endometrial cancer staging, with lymphadenectomy performed via transperitoneal, extraperitoneal, or robotic-assisted methods. Sixty-six consecutive patients (24 transperitoneal, 19 extraperitoneal, and 23 robotic) were identified who underwent laparoscopic-assisted endometrial cancer staging with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Patients were divided into three groups based on method of para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Anesthetic and surgical times were longest in the extraperitoneal group. Patients undergoing robotic surgery had the shortest hospital stay and lowest conversion rate to laparotomy. Patients undergoing robotic lymphadenectomy had more pelvic and para-aortic nodes removed compared with the transperitoneal method. There was no difference in number of para-aortic nodes removed in the robotic versus extraperitoneal methods. The extraperitoneal group had highest peak end-tidal CO2 levels and highest narcotic requirements, while patients in the robotic group had highest peak inflation pressures and lowest pain scores. There were no differences in complication rates amongst the three groups. Robotic-assisted staging is superior to other minimally invasive methods in terms of most operative outcomes. Extraperitoneal lymphadenectomy is equivalent to robotic surgery where number of aortic nodes is concerned, but is associated with higher end-tidal CO2 levels and narcotic requirements. Peak inflation pressures were highest in the robotic group, with no apparent adverse consequences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Vasilev SA, McGonigle KF (1996) Extraperitoneal laparoscopic para-aortic lymph node dissection. Gynecol Oncol 61:315–320
Dargent D, Ansquer Y, Mathevet P (2000) Technical development and results of left extraperitoneal laparoscopic para aortic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 77:87–92
Sonoda Y, Leblanc E, Querleu D et al (2003) Prospective evaluation of surgical staging of advanced cervical cancer via a laparoscopic extraperitoneal approach. Gynecol Oncol 91:326–331
Tillmanns T, Lowe MP (2007) Safety, feasibility, and costs of outpatient laparoscopic extraperitoneal aortic nodal dissection for locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 106:370–374
Lim PC, Kang E, Park Do H (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
Gaia G, Holloway RW, Santoro L, Ahmad S, Di Silverio E, Spinillo A (2010) Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 116(6):1422–1431
Cardenas-Goicoechea J, Adams S, Bhat SB, Randall TC (2010) Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center. Gynecol Oncol 117(2):224–228
Cho JE, Nezhat FR (2009) Robotics and gynecologic oncology: review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(6):669–681
Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS et al (2009) Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol 113(1):36–41
Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L 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
Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):407–411
Gehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A, Abaid LN, Mendivil A, Boggess JF (2008) What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol 111(1):41–45
Magrina JF, Kho R, Montero RP, Magtibay PM, Pawlina W (2009) Robotic extraperitoneal aortic lymphadenectomy: development of a technique. Gynecol Oncol 113:32–35
Kalmar AF, Foubert L, Hendricks JF, Mottrie A, Absalom A, Mortier EP, Struys MM (2010) Influence of steep trendelenburg position and CO2 pneumoperitoneum on cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory homeostasis during robotic prostatectomy. Br J Anaesth 104(4):433–439
Eltabbakh GH, Shamonki MI, Moody JM, Garafano LL (2001) Laparoscopy as the primary modality for the treatment of women with endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 91:378–387
Fleming ND, Havrilesky LJ, Valea FA, Allen TK, Broadwater G, Bland A, Habib A (2011) Analgesic and antiemetic needs following minimally invasive vs open staging for endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(65):e1–e6
Shashoua AR, Gill D, Locher SR (2009) Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS 13(3):364–369
Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM et al (2009) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic oncology group study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27(32):5331–5336
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest to report relating to this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fleming, N.D., Axtell, A.E. & Lentz, S.E. Operative and anesthetic outcomes in endometrial cancer staging via three minimally invasive methods. J Robotic Surg 6, 337–344 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-011-0319-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-011-0319-y