Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and staging for the treatment of endometrial cancer: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy and abdominal approaches

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

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The treatment of endometrial cancer using a minimally invasive approach provides benefits to the patient; however, there are currently few papers comparing robotic total laparoscopic hysterectomy with staging to conventional laparoscopic and abdominal approaches. Analyses of 102 consecutive patients undergoing robotic total hysterectomy were compared to historical cohorts of 104 patients undergoing laparoscopic total hysterectomy and 78 patients undergoing abdominal total hysterectomy (laparotomy). The majority of all patients were FIGO’88 stage IB. Patient characteristics were similar, except for lower age (P = 0.0236) and body mass index (P = 0.0134) in the laparoscopy group when compared to laparotomy. Operative time was longer for the robotic group at 108.7 min, compared to 79.4 min for laparoscopy (P = 0.0207) and 84.0 min for laparotomy (P < 0.0001). Lymph node yield was significantly higher in the robotic group (16.0 nodes) when compared to both laparoscopy (5.0 nodes, P < 0.0001) and laparotomy (11.4 nodes, P = 0.0006). The perioperative complication rates were significantly decreased in both the robotic (10.8%) and laparoscopy (6.7%) groups when compared to laparotomy at 25.6% (P = 0.0089; P = 0.0002). Hospital stay was significantly reduced in both the robotic (1.9 days, P < 0.0001) and laparoscopic (1.8 days, P < 0.0001) groups when compared to laparotomy (4.1 days). Both minimally invasive approaches reduced morbidity. Robotic assistance resulted in improved lymph node yield. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer is at least equivalent to laparoscopic and open techniques and may be the preferred method for treatment of endometrial cancer.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA (2000) Cancer statistics, 2000. CA Cancer J Clin 50:7–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ribeiro SC, Ribeiro RM, Santos NC, Pinotti JA (2003) A randomized study of total abdominal, vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 83:37–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Farquhar CM, Steiner CA (2002) Hysterectomy rates in the United States 1990–1997. Obstet Gynecol 99:229–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wu JM, Wechter ME, Geller EJ, Nguyen TV, Visco AG (2007) Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol 110:1091–1095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS, Kim KH, Carlson MJ, Phillips GS, Fowler JM (2009) Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol 113:36–41. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoekstra AV, Morgan JM, Lurain JR, Buttin BM, Singh DK, Schink JC, Lowe MP (2009) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: impact on fellowship training. Gynecol Oncol 114:168–172. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.04.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mabrouk M, Frumovitz M, Greer M, Sharma S, Schmeler KM, Soliman PT, Ramirez PT (2009) Trends in laparoscopic and robotic surgery among gynecologic oncologists: a survey update. Gynecol Oncol 112:501–505. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.11.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. DeNardis SA, Holloway RW, Bigsby GE, Pikaart DP, Ahmad S, Finkler NJ (2008) Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 111:412–417. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Veljovich DS, Paley PJ, Drescher CW, Everett EN, Shah C, Peters WA 3rd (2008) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198:679.e1–e9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.032

  10. Seamon LG, Bryant SA, Rheaume PS, Kimball KJ, Huh WK, Fowler JM, Phillips GS, Cohn DE (2009) Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 114:16–21. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181aa96c7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 111:41–45. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.06.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 117:224–228. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.01.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boggess JF (2008) A comparative study of three surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer; robotic-assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:360.e1–e9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.012

  14. 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 111:407–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barnett JC, Judd JP, Wu JM, Scales CD Jr, Myers ER, Havrilesky LJ (2010) Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 116:685–693. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ee6e4d

    Google Scholar 

  16. Reza M, Maeso S, Blasco JA, Andradas E (2010) Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg 97:1772–1783. doi:10.1002/bjs.7269

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 116:1422–1431. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f74153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lowe MP, Johnson PR, Kamelle SA, Kumar S, Chamberlain DH, Tillmanns TD (2009) A Multiinstitutional experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 114:236–243. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181af2a74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Peiretti M, Zanagnolo V, Bocciolone L, Landoni F, Colombo N, Minig L, Sanguineti F, Maggioni A (2009) Robotic surgery: changing the surgical approach for endometrial cancer in a referral cancer center. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16:427–431. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Richardson DL, Valmadre S, Carlson MJ, Phillips GS, Fowler JM (2008) Robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 112:1207–1213. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818e4416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Holloway RW, Ahmad S, DeNardis SA, Peterson LB, Sultana N, Bigsby GEt, Pikaart DP, Finkler NJ (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer: analysis of surgical performance. Gynecol Oncol 115:447–452. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.08.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kho RM, Akl MN, Cornella JL, Magtibay PM, Wechter ME, Magrina JF (2009) Incidence and characteristics of patients with vaginal cuff dehiscence after robotic procedures. Obstet Gynecol 114:231–235. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181af36e3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Robinson BL, Liao JB, Adams SF, Randall TC (2009) Vaginal cuff dehiscence after robotic total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 114:369–371. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181af68c6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Seamon LG, Fowler JM, Richardson DL, Carlson MJ, Valmadre S, Phillips GS, Cohn DE (2009) A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 114:162–167. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.04.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank April E. Hebert, Ph.D., a Scientific Consultant for Intuitive Surgical and Usha Seshadri-Kreaden, M.Sc., Senior Biostatistician for Intuitive Surgical, for their assistance with this manuscript. Manuscript preparation assistance and statistical assistance were provided by Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.

Conflict of interest

Drs. Ricardo Estape and Nicholas Lambrou are proctors for Intuitive Surgical and have received compensation for the proctoring of other surgeons.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Baptist Health, South Florida Hospital, 8585 Sunset Drive, Suite 202, Miami, FL, 33143, USA

    Ricardo Estape, Nicholas Lambrou, Eric Estape, Oscar Vega & Trisha Ojea

Authors
  1. Ricardo Estape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas Lambrou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric Estape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oscar Vega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Trisha Ojea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Estape.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Estape, R., Lambrou, N., Estape, E. et al. Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and staging for the treatment of endometrial cancer: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy and abdominal approaches. J Robotic Surg 6, 199–205 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-011-0290-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-011-0290-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation