Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.13.5359

Feasibility and Safety of Robotic Surgery for Gynecologic Cancers  

Manchana, Tarinee (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University)
Sirisabya, Nakarin (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University)
Vasuratna, Apichai (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University)
Termrungruanglert, Wichai (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University)
Tresukosol, Damrong (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University)
Wisawasukmongchol, Wirach (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University)
Publication Information
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention / v.15, no.13, 2014 , pp. 5359-5364 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: To determine surgical outcomes, perioperative complications, and patient outcomes in gynecologic cancer patients undergoing robotic surgery. Materials and Methods: Surgical outcomes, including docking time, total operative time, console time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversion rate and perioperative complications were retrospectively reviewed in 30 gynecologic cancer patients undergoing robotic surgery. Patient outcomes included recovery time and patient satisfaction, as scored by a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0-10. Results: The operations included 24 hysterectomies with pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLD) and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy, four radical hysterectomies with PLD, and two radical trachelectomies with PLD. Mean docking time was $12.8{\pm}9.7min$, total operative time was $345.5{\pm}85.0min$, and console time was $281.9{\pm}78.6min$. These times were decreased in the second half of the cases. There was no conversion rate. Three intraoperative complications, including one external iliac artery injury, one bladder injury, and one massive bleeding requiring blood transfusion were reported. Postoperative complications occurred in eight patients, most were minor. Only one patient had port herniation that required reoperation. Mean hospital stay was $3.5{\pm}1.7days$, and recovery time was $14.2{\pm}8.1days$. Two-thirds of patients felt very satisfied and one-third felt satisfied; the mean satisfaction score was 9.4 +0.9. Two patients with stage III endometrial cancer developed isolated port site metastasis at five and 13 months postoperatively. Conclusions: Robotic surgery for gynecologic cancer appears to be feasible, with acceptable perioperative complication rate, fast recovery time and high patient satisfaction.
Keywords
Gynecologic cancer; minimally invasive surgery; robotic surgery;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Yim GW, Kim YT (2012). Robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 24, 14-23.   DOI
2 Sirisabya N, Manchana T, Worasethsin P, et al (2009). Is complete surgical staging necessary in clinically early stage endometrial carcinoma? Int J Gynecol Cancer, 19, 1057-61.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Wang HL, Ren YF, Yang J, Qin RY, Zhai KH (2013). Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer; a meta-analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 2515-9.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, et al (2008). A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 15, 584-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Noble BN, Kho RM, Magtibay P (2011). Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol, 121, 100-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Mohammadzadeh N, Safdari R (2014). Robotic surgery in cancer care: opportunities and challenges. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15, 1081-3.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Palomba S, Falbo A, Russo T, La Sala GB (2012). Port-site metastasis after laparoscopic surgical staging for endometrial cancer: a systematic review of the published and unpublished data. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 19, 531-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Ramirez PT, Adams S, Boggess JF, et al (2012). Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: a society of gynecologic oncology consensus statement. developed by the society of gynecologic oncology's clinical practice robotics task force. Gynecol Oncol, 124, 180-4.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Schreuder HW, Zweemer RP, van Baal WM, et al (2010). From open radical hysterectomy to robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: aspects of a single institution learning curve. Gynecol Surg, 7, 253-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Seamon LG, Fowler JM, Richardson DL, et al (2009). A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 114, 162-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Kruijdenberg CB, van den Einden LC, Hendriks JC, Zusterzeel PL, Bekkers RL (2011). Robot-assisted versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer, a review. Gynecol Oncol, 120, 334-9.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Galaal K, Bryant A, Fisher AD, et al (2012). Laparoscopyversus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 9, CD006655.
13 Grabosch S, Xynos F (2013). Isolated port-site metastasis after robotic hysterectomy for stage IA endometrial adenocarcinoma. Obstet Gynecol, 122, 437-9.   DOI
14 Kornblith AB, Huang HQ, Walker JL, et al (2009). 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, 27, 5337-42.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Lowe MP, Johnson PR, Kamelle SA, et al (2009) A multiinstitutional experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol, 114, 236-43.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 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, 413-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Liu H, Lu D, Wang L, et al (2012). Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, CD008978.
18 Lonnerfors C, Bossmar T, Persson J (2013). Port-site metastases following robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for gynecological malignancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92, 1361-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM (2008). Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol, 109, 86-91.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Barnett JC, Judd JP, Wu JM, et al (2010). Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol, 116, 685-93.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Cantrell LA, Mendivil A, Gehrig PA, Boggess JF (2010). Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience. Gynecol Oncol, 117, 260-5.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Gaia G, Holloway RW, Santoro L, et al (2010). Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol, 116, 1422-31.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 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, 407-11.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Yim GW, Kim SW, Nam EJ, Kim S, Kim YT (2013). Learning curve analysis of robot -assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: initial experience at a single institution. J Gynecol Oncol, 24, 303-12.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Ndofor BT, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, et al (2011). Rate of port-site metastasis is uncommon in patients undergoing robotic surgery for gynecological malignancies. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 21, 936-40.   DOI   ScienceOn