Robot-assisted surgery in gynecological oncology: a review

Figures & data

Table 1 Summary of robot-assisted surgery in endometrial cancer

Study	Bell et al^Citation7				Boggess et al^Citation8				Coronado et al^Citation15				Jung et al^Citation16				Seamon et al^Citation22		Seror et al^Citation23
Surgery	O	L	R		O	L	R		O	L	R		O	L	R		L	R	L	R
Patients (n)	40	30	40		138	81	103		192	84	71		56	25	28		76	105	106	40
BMI (kg/m^2)	31.8	31.9	33.0		34.7	29.0	32.9		29.5	27.2	28.7	*0>L	24.8	25.2	23.4		28.7	34.2	25.4	25.0
EBL (mL)	316.8	253.0	166.0	*R<O; R=L	266.0	145.8	74.5	*R<L&O	231.5	190.0	99.4	*R<L&O	NR	NR	NR		200.0	88.0	NR	NR
Transfusion rates (%)	15.0	10.0	5.0		1.5	2.5	1.0		14.1	7.1	4.2	*R<L&O	42.9	16.0	14.3	*O>L&R	18.0	3.0	0.0	0.0
Operative time (minutes)	108.6	171.1	184.0	*R>O; R=L	146.5	213.4	191.2	*	189.5	239.6	21 1.2	*L>O&R	187.9	165.2	193.2		336.0	305.0	268.1	313.6
LOS (days)	4.0	2.0	2.3	*O>R	4.4	1.2	1.0	*R<L&O	8.1	4.6	3.5	*O>L&R	10.8	7.7	7.9	*O>L&R	2.0	1.0	7.2	6.9
Lymph nodes (mean)	14.9	17.1	17.0		14.9	23.1	32.9	*	21.8	24.7	21.9		29.6	22.8	28.9		33.0	31.0	NR	NR
Complications rate (%)	27.5	20.0	7.5	*R<O; R<L	29.7	13.6	5.8	*	34.9	28.5	21.1	*R<O	25.0	8.0	7.1		14.0	13.0	32.1	25.0

Note: *Statistically significant (P<0.05).

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; EBL, estimated blood loss; LOS, length of stay; NR, not reported; L, laparoscopy; O, open; R, robotic.

Table 2 Summary of robot-assisted surgery in radical hysterectomy

Study	Sert and Abeler^Citation27				Estape et al^Citation31				Magrina et al^Citation33				Asciutto et al^Citation30		Ko et al^Citation32		Diaz-Feijoo et al^Citation35		Tinelli et al^Citation34
Surgery	O	L	R		O	L	R		O	L	R		O	R	O	L	L	R	L	R
Patients (n)	26	7	35		14	17	32		35	31	27		185	64	32	16	83	17	76	23
BMI (kg/m^2)	25.5	22.5	25.4		29.5	28.1	29.7		27.3	26.8	27.2		25.7	27.0	26.6	27.6	26.5	23.0	29.0	28.0
EBL (mL)	595.0	164.0	82.0	*R<L&O	621.4	209.4	130.0	*R<O	443.6	208.4	133.1	*L&R<O	495.0	102.0	665.6	81.9	90.0	20.0	95.0	157.0
Transfusion rates (%)	7.7	0.0	2.8		35.7	0.0	3.1	*R<O	9.0	0.0	4.0		7.0	0.0	31.2	6.3	0	0	0	0
Operative time (minutes)	163.0	364.0	264.0	*	1 14.0	132.0	144.0		166.8	220.4	189.6	*L>R&O	217.0	204.0	219.0	290.0	150.0	150.0	255.0	323.0
LOS (days)	9.2	8.4	3.8	*R<L&O	4	2.3	2.6	*R<O	3.6	2.4	1.7	*L&R<O	6.1	2.5	4.9	1.7	2.0	2.0	4.0	3.0
Lymph nodes (mean)	26.1	15.0	19.6	*R<O	25.7	18.6	32.4	*R>O&L	27.7	25.9	25.9		31.4	23.3	17.1	15.6	14.0	17.0	38.6	34.9
Complications rate (%)	46	86	20		29	35	22		22.9	19.4	25.9		23.0	23.0	25.0	19	8.4	17.6	24.0	26.0

Note: *Statistically significant (P<0.05).

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; EBL, estimated blood loss; LOS, length of stay; O, open; L, laparoscopy; R, robotic.

Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(3):407–411.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, et al. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(4):e361–e369.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Coronado PJ, Herraiz MA, Magrina JF, Fasero M, Vidart JA. Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165(2):289–294.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jung YW, Lee DW, Kim SW, et al. Robot-assisted staging using three robotic arms for endometrial cancer: comparison to laparoscopy and laparotomy at a single institution. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101(2):116–121.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS, et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(1):36–41.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Seror J, Bats AS, Huchon C, Bensaid C, Douay-Hauser N, Lecuru F. Laparoscopy vs robotics in surgical management of endometrial cancer: comparison of intraoperative and postoperative complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(1):120–125.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sert MB, Abeler V. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: comparison with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy; one surgeon’s experience at the Norwegian Radium Hospital. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(3):600–604.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Estape R, Lambrou N, Diaz R, Estape E, Dunkin N, Rivera A. A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113(3):357–361.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(1):86–91.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Asciutto KC, Kalapotharakos G, Lofgren M, Hogberg T, Borgfeldt C. Robot-assisted surgery in cervical cancer patients reduces the time to normal activities of daily living. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(3):260–265.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Feltmate CM. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(3):425–430.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Díaz-Feijoo B, Gil-Ibáñez B, Pérez-Benavente A, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopy for extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(1):98–101.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tinelli R, Malzoni M, Cosentino F, et al. Robotics versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(9):2622–2628.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar