Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer: A retrospective, single-center study

Aim We compared the short-term outcomes between conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) and robot-assisted surgery (RAS) to assess the technical feasibility of the latter for early-stage endometrial cancer. Methods We retrospectively compared the perioperative outcomes between two groups of 223 patients (CLS group, n = 102; RAS group, n = 121) with early-stage endometrial cancer. Surgical procedures included hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. We analyzed the data from intrapelvic surgery alone because para-aortic lymphadenectomy was performed via conventional endoscopic extraperitoneal approach without robot for both groups. Results No differences were identified in patients' age and body mass index. The mean operative time was 133 +/- 28 versus 178 +/- 41 min (P < 0.01), mean blood loss was 196 +/- 153 versus 237 +/- 146 mL (P = 0.047), mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 9 +/- 4 versus 8 +/- 3 days (P = 0.01) and mean rate of perioperative complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher was 2.0 versus 3.4% (P = 0.53) for the CLS versus RAS groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in the number of resected lymph nodes. Conclusion The operative time was significantly longer and blood loss was significantly greater in the RAS group than in the CLS group, without a significant difference in the number of resected lymph nodes. These differences are within an acceptable clinical range, showing that RAS is feasible and safe for early-stage endometrial cancer, providing short-term outcomes comparable to those of conventional surgery. Future studies are warranted to compare the long-term oncological outcomes by extending the observation period and including para-aortic lymphadenectomy data.