Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 244–251 | Cite as

Is Robotic-Assisted Surgery Safe in the Elderly Population? An Analysis of Gynecologic Procedures in Patients ≥ 65 Years Old

  • Alessia Aloisi
  • Jill H. Tseng
  • Samith Sandadi
  • Ryan Callery
  • Jacqueline Feinberg
  • Theresa Kuhn
  • Ginger J. Gardner
  • Yukio Sonoda
  • Carol L. Brown
  • Elizabeth L. Jewell
  • Richard R. Barakat
  • Mario M. LeitaoJr.Email author
Gynecologic Oncology



The elderly population is expanding worldwide but is underrepresented in clinical trials. We sought to assess the safety of robotic gynecologic surgery in an elderly cohort and to identify factors associated with unfavorable outcomes.


All patients ≥ 65 years who underwent a robotically assisted procedure at a single institution between May 2007 to December 2016 were divided into three age groups: 65–74 (Group 1); 75–84 (Group 2); ≥ 85 (Group 3). Perioperative outcomes were recorded in patients who did not require conversion to laparotomy. We compared clinical variables among groups and performed multivariate logistic regression to detect variables associated with major complications (≥ Grade 3) or 90-day mortality.


We retrospectively identified 982 cases: 685 in Group 1; 249 in Group 2; 48 in Group 3. Median age = 71 years. Median BMI = 28.9. Malignancy was documented in 72.8% of cases; the majority were endometrial cancer (61.8%). Thirty-four patients (3.5%) were readmitted within 30 days. Seventy-seven (7.8%) had a postoperative complication, and 23 (2.3%) had a major complication. Ninety-day mortality was 0.5%. There was significant difference between groups with respect to body mass index (P = 0.026), ECOG PS (P ≤ 0.001), > 5 comorbidities (P = 0.005), hospital stay (P < 0.001), major complications (P = 0.001), and 90-day mortality (P < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression, age ≥ 85 years was associated with major complications. Body mass index, age ≥ 85 years, and major complications were significantly associated with 90-day mortality.


Robotic-assisted surgery appears to be safe in an elderly cohort. The incidence of overall and major complications is consistent with those reported in the literature. Patients ≥ 85 years old appear to be at higher risk of unfavorable outcomes.



This study was funded in part through the NIH/NCI Support Grant P30 CA008748.


The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Dr. Leitao does ad hoc consulting with Intuitive Surgical, Inc.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. The world health report 1998—Life in the 21st century: a vision for all. Accessed 28 June 2018.
  2. 2.
    Partridge JSL, Harari D, Dhesi JK. Frailty in the older surgical patient: a review. Age Ageing 2012;41:142–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Turrentine FE,Wang H, Simpson VB, Jones RS. Surgical risk factors, morbidity, and mortality in elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203:865–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bentrem DJ, Cohen ME, Hynes DM, Ko CY, Bilimoria KY. Identification of specific quality improvement opportunities for the elderly undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Arch Surg. 2009;144:1013–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G, Ryan TJ, Isom OW, Bennett E, Jones RH. Predictors of readmission for complications of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA. 2003;290:773–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khuri SF, Henderson WG, DePalma RG, Mosca C, Healey NA, Kumbhani DJ; Participants in the VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Determinants of long-term survival after major surgery and the adverse effect of postoperative complications. Ann Surg. 2005;242:326–41.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rabeneck L, Davila JA, Thompson M, El-Serag HB. Outcomes in elderly patients following surgery for colorectal cancer in the veterans affairs health care system. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20:1115–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teh SH, Diggs BS, Deveney CW, Sheppard BC. Patient and hospital characteristics on the variance of perioperative outcomes for pancreatic resection in the United States: a plea for outcome-based and not volume-based referral guidelines. Arch Surg. 2009;144:713–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Polanczyk CA, Marcantonio E, Goldman L, Rohde LE, Orav J, Mangione CM, Lee TH. Impact of age on perioperative complications and length of stay in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:637–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright JD, Lewin SN, Barrena Medel NI, Sun X, Burke WM, Deutsch I, Herzog TJ. Morbidity and mortality of surgery for endometrial cancer in the oldest old. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:66.e1–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cykert S, Dilworth-Anderson P, Monroe MH, et al. Factors associated with decisions to undergo surgery among patients with newly diagnosed early-stage lung cancer. JAMA. 2010;303:2368–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodwin JS, Samet JM, Hunt WC. Determinants of survival in older cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88:1031–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schonberg MA, Marcantonio ER, Li D, Silliman RA, Ngo L, McCarthy EP. Breast cancer among the oldest old: tumor characteristics, treatment choices, and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2038–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bijen CB, Briet JM, de Bock GH, Arts HJ, Bergsma-Kadijk JA, Mourits MJ. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of patients with early-stage endometrial cancer: a randomized multi center study. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lin F, Zhang QJ, Zheng FY, Zhao HQ, Zeng QQ, Zheng MH, Zhu HY. Laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for endometrial cancer–a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:1315–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palomba S, Falbo A, Mocciaro R, Russo T, Zullo F. Laparoscopic treatment for endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:415–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kornblith AB, Huang HQ, Walker JL, Spirtos NM, Rotmensch J, Cella D. Quality of life of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing laparoscopic international federation of gynecology and obstetrics staging compared with laparotomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5337–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bogani G, Cromi A, Uccella S, Serati M, Casarin J, Mariani A, Ghezzi F. Laparoscopic staging in women older than 75 years with early-stage endometrial cancer: comparison with open surgical operation. Menopause. 2014;21:945–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sarlos D, Kots LA. Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;23:283–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schar G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:604–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T, Einarsson JI. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:368.e1–7.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guy MS, Sheeder J, Behbakht K, Wright JD, Guntupalli SR. Comparative outcomes in older and younger women undergoing laparotomy or robotic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214:350.e1–10.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lewis JH, Kilgore ML, Goldman DP, et al. Participation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1383–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lavoue V, Zeng X, Lau S, et al. Impact of robotics on the outcome of elderly patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 133:556–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moore KN, Grainger LS, Smith C, Lanneau M, Walker JL, Gold MA, McMeekin DS. Pathologic findings and outcomes for octogenarians presenting with uterine malignancy. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:572–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fan CJ, Chien HL, Weiss MJ, He J, Wolfgang CL, Cameron JL, Pawlik TM, Makary MA. Minimally invasive versus open surgery in the Medicare population: a comparison of post-operative and economic outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2018; 32:3874–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Orimo H, Ito H, Suzuki T, Araki A, Hosoi T, Sawabe M. Reviewing the definition of “elderly.” Geriatrics Gerontol Int. 2006; 6:149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vaknin Z, Perri T, Lau S, et al. Outcome and quality of life in a prospective cohort of the first 100 robotic surgeries for endometrial cancer, with focus on elderly patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:1367–73.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frey MK, Ihnow SB, Worley MJ Jr, Heyman KP, Caputo TA. Minimally invasive staging of endometrial cancer is feasible and safe in elderly women. J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:200–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zeng XZ, Lavoue V, Lau S, et al. Outcome of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer as a function of patient age. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25:637–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zakhari A, Czuzoj-Shulman N, Spence AR, Gotlieb WH, Abenhaim HA. Hysterectomy for uterine cancer in the elderly: a comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted techniques. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016; 26:1222–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lavoue V, Zeng X, Lau S, et al. Impact of robotics on the outcome of elderly patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133:556–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bourgin C, Lambaudie E, Houvenaeghel G, Foucher F, Levêque J, Lavoué V. Impact of age on surgical staging and approaches (laparotomy, laparoscopy and robotic surgery) in endometrial cancer management. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:703–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Backes FJ, ElNaggar AC, Farrell MR, et al. Perioperative outcomes for laparotomy compared to robotic surgical staging of endometrial cancer in the elderly: a retrospective cohort. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016;26:1717–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lowe MP, Kumar S, Johnson PR, Kamelle SA, Chamberlain DH, Tillmanns TD. Robotic surgical management of endometrial cancer in octogenarians and nonagenarians: analysis of perioperative outcomes and review of the literature. J Robot Surg. 2010;4:109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bishop EA, Java J, Moore KN, Walker JL. Operative outcomes among a geriatric population of endometrial cancer patients: an ancillary data analysis of Gynecologic Oncology Group study LAP2, in 45th Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133:7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gallotta V, Conte C, D’Indinosante M, et al. Robotic surgery in elderly and very elderly gynecologic cancer patients. J Min Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:872–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chen SH, Li ZA, Huang R, Xue HQ. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer staging: a meta-analysis. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55:488–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lauterbach R, Matanes E, Lowenstein L. Review of robotic surgery in gynecology-the future is here. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2017;28:8. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dunker S, Hsu HY, Sebag J, Sadun AA. Perioperative risk factors for posterior ischemic optic neuropathy. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194:705-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessia Aloisi
    • 1
  • Jill H. Tseng
    • 1
  • Samith Sandadi
    • 1
  • Ryan Callery
    • 1
  • Jacqueline Feinberg
    • 2
  • Theresa Kuhn
    • 3
  • Ginger J. Gardner
    • 1
    • 4
  • Yukio Sonoda
    • 1
    • 4
  • Carol L. Brown
    • 1
    • 4
  • Elizabeth L. Jewell
    • 1
    • 4
  • Richard R. Barakat
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
  • Mario M. LeitaoJr.
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Gynecology Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Yale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Rutgers New Jersey Medical SchoolNewarkUSA
  4. 4.Weill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Northwell Health Cancer InstituteNew Hyde ParkUSA
  6. 6.Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra UniversityHempsteadUSA

Personalised recommendations