Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the utility of robotic axillary lymph node dissection in patients with invasive breast cancer: a systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robot-assisted axillary lymph node dissection (RALND) has been proposed to improve surgical and oncological outcomes for patients with breast cancer. To perform a systematic review of current literature evaluating RALND in patients with invasive breast cancer. A systematic search was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies outlining outcomes following RALND were included. Two studies involving 92 patients were included in this review. Of these, 41 underwent RALND using the da Vinci© robotic system (44.57%), and 51 underwent conventional axillary lymph node dissection (CALND) (55.43%). There was no significant difference observed with respect to intra-operative blood loss or duration of procedure in those undergoing CALND and RALND (P > 0.050). One study reported a significant difference in lymphoedema rates in support of RALND (6.67% vs 26.67%, P = 0.038). Overall, data in relation to postoperative fat necrosis (10.00% vs 33.33%, P = 0.028), wound infection rates (3.33% vs. 20.00%, P = 0.044), and wound ≤ 40 mm in length (63.63% vs. 19.05%, P = 0.020) supported RALND. Oncological outcomes were only reported in one of the studies, which concluded that there was no local or metastatic recurrence in either group at 3-month follow-up. These provisional results support RALND as a safe alternative to CALND. Notwithstanding, the paucity of data limits the robustness of conclusions which may be drawn surrounding the adoption of RALND as the standard of care. Further high-quality studies are required to ratify these findings.

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. Waks AG, Winer EP (2019) Breast cancer treatment: a review Jama 321:288–300. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.19323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Halsted WS (1894) I. The results of operations for the cure of cancer of the breast performed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from June, 1889, to January, 1894. Ann Surg 20:497–555. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-189407000-00075

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Andersson Y, Bergkvist L, Frisell J, de Boniface J (2018) Long-term breast cancer survival in relation to the metastatic tumor burden in axillary lymph nodes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 171:359–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4820-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Davey MG, O'Flaherty C, Cleere EF et al (2022) Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJS Open, Volume 6, Issue 2, April 2022, zrac022, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac022

  5. Keelan S, Flanagan M, Hill ADK (2021) Evolving trends in surgical management of breast cancer: an analysis of 30 years of practice changing papers. Front Oncol 11:622621. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.622621

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Excellence NIfHaC (2018) Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng101. Accessed 21 May 2023

  7. Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L et al (2017) Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: the ACOSOG Z0011 (alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA 318:918–926. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.11470

  8. Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M et al (2006) Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:599–609. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj158

  9. Brackstone M, Baldassarre FG, Perera FE et al (2021) Management of the axilla in early-stage breast cancer: Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) and ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol 39:3056–3082. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.21.00934

  10. Keelan S, Boland MR, Ryan ÉJ et al (2023) Long-term survival in patients with node-positive breast cancer who undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy alone after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: meta-analysis. Br J Surg 110:324–332. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac413

  11. Yates DR, Vaessen C, Roupret M (2011) From Leonardo to da Vinci: the history of robot-assisted surgery in urology. BJU Int 108:1708–1713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10576.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Xue R, Liu R (2022) Statistical analysis of da Vinci procedure volumes of 2021 in the Chinese Mainland. Int Surg 4:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isurg.2022.06.003

  13. Azizian M, Liu M, Khalaji I et al (2020) 3 - The da Vinci surgical system. In: Abedin-Nasab MH (ed) Handbook of robotic and image-guided Surgery. Elsevier, pp 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814245-5.00003-7

  14. Stewart CL, Ituarte PHG, Melstrom KA et al (2019) Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the National Inpatient Sample. Surg Endosc 33:2591–2601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6554-9

  15. Toesca A, Sangalli C, Maisonneuve P et al (2022) A randomized trial of robotic mastectomy versus open surgery in women with breast cancer or BrCA mutation. Ann Surg 276:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000004969

  16. Filipe MD, de Bock E, Postma EL et al (2022) Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy complication rate compared to traditional nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 16:265–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01265-w

  17. Lim SML, Kum CK, Lam FL (2005) Nerve-sparing axillary dissection using the da Vinci surgical system. World J Surg 29:1352–1355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7902-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM et al (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162:777–784. https://doi.org/10.7326/m14-2385

  19. Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T et al (2007) Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 7:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-7-16

  20. Ahn JH, Park JM, Choi SB et al (2023) Early experience of robotic axillary lymph node dissection in patients with node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 198:405–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06760-8

  21. Chen K, M Beeraka N, Zhang J et al (2021) Efficacy of da Vinci robot-assisted lymph node surgery than conventional axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer – a comparative study. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 17:e2307. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2307

  22. Volders JH, Negenborn VL, Haloua MH et al (2017) Cosmetic outcome and quality of life are inextricably linked in breast-conserving therapy. J Surg Oncol 115:941–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24615

  23. Lee S, Kim HY, Lee CR et al (2014) A prospective comparison of patient body image after robotic thyroidectomy and conventional open thyroidectomy in patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma. Surgery 156:117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2014.02.007

  24. İyigün T, Kaya M, Gülbeyaz S et al (2017) Patient body image, self-esteem, and cosmetic results of minimally invasive robotic cardiac surgery. Int J Surg 39:88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.01.105

  25. Hack TF, Cohen L, Katz J et al (1999) Physical and psychological morbidity after axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:143–149. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1999.17.1.143

  26. Velanovich V, Szymanski W (1999) Quality of life of breast cancer patients with lymphedema. Am J Surg 177:184–187; discussion 188. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(99)00008-2

  27. Maunsell E, Brisson J, Deschênes L (1993) Arm problems and psychological distress after surgery for breast cancer. Can J Surg 36:315–320

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sakorafas GH, Peros G, Cataliotti L, Vlastos G (2006) Lymphedema following axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. Surg Oncol 15:153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2006.11.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Engel J, Eckel R, Kerr J et al (2003) The process of metastasisation for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 39:1794–1806. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(03)00422-2

  30. Falcone T, Goldberg J, Garcia-Ruiz A et al (1999) Full robotic assistance for laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: a case report. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 9:107–113. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.1999.9.107

  31. Unger SW, Unger HM, Bass RT (1994) AESOP robotic arm. Surg Endosc 8:1131. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00705739

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Adler JR Jr, Chang SD, Murphy MJ et al (1997) The cyberknife: a frameless robotic system for radiosurgery. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 69:124–128. https://doi.org/10.1159/000099863

  33. Miller K, Curet M (2019) Intuitive surgical: an overview. In: Tsuda S, Kudsi OY (eds) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery: a comprehensive textbook. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96866-7_1

  34. Yates DR, Rouprêt M, Bitker M-O, Vaessen C (2011) To infinity and beyond: the robotic toy story. Eur Urol 60:263–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Steffens D, McBride KE, Hirst N et al (2023) Surgical outcomes and cost analysis of a multi-specialty robotic-assisted surgery caseload in the Australian public health system. J Robotic Surg 17:2237–2245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01643-6

  36. Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A (2012) Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26:598–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1936-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Davey MG, Ryan ÉJ, Donlon NE et al (2023) Comparing surgical outcomes of approaches to adrenalectomy - a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Langenbecks Arch Surg 408:180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-023-02911-7

  38. Hughes T, Rai B, Madaan S, Chedgy E, Somani B. (2023) The availability, cost, limitations, learning curve and future of robotic systems in urology and prostate cancer surgery. J Clin Med 12(6):2268. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062268

  39. Davey MG, Temperley HC, O’Sullivan NJ, Marcelino V, Ryan OK, Ryan ÉJ, Donlon NE, Johnston SM, Robb WB (2023) Minimally invasive and open gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Ann Surg Oncol 30:5544–5557. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13654-6

  40. Jackson NR, Yao L, Tufano RP, Kandil EH (2014) Safety of robotic thyroidectomy approaches: meta-analysis and systematic review. Head Neck 36:137–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.23223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tan A, Ashrafian H, Scott AJ et al (2016) Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years. Surg Endosc 30:4330–4352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4752-x

  42. Choi JE, You JH, Kim DK et al (2015) Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:891–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.028

  43. Prospective Registry Trial for Single Port Robot-assisted Nipple Sparing Mastectomy (SPrNSM) (2016) Identifier NCT04866992. U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04866992. Accessed 16 Jul 2023

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Galway, Galway, Republic of Ireland

    Róisín Thornton, Matthew G. Davey & Michael J. Kerin

Authors
  1. Róisín Thornton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew G. Davey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. Kerin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Róisín Thornton.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thornton, R., Davey, M.G. & Kerin, M.J. Evaluating the utility of robotic axillary lymph node dissection in patients with invasive breast cancer: a systematic review. Ir J Med Sci 193, 1163–1170 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-023-03561-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-023-03561-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation