4.7 Article

Robotic Single-Site Radical Hysterectomy for Early Cervical Cancer: A Single Center Experience of 5 Years

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13050733

Keywords

cervical cancer; radical hysterectomy; robot assisted surgery; single-site

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective study presents the surgical and oncologic outcomes of robotic single-site radical hysterectomy (RSRH) in 44 cases of early-stage cervical cancer. The study found that RSRH was safe and acceptable, but should be carefully considered in well-selected patient groups.
Background: The mainstay of treatment for early-stage cervical cancer is surgery; we present a 5-year experience of robotic single-site radical hysterectomy (RSRH) focused on surgical and oncologic outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included 44 cases of RSRH performed in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Results: The median follow-up period for the 44 patients was 34 months. The mean total operation time was 156.07 +/- 31.77 min, while mean console time was 95.81 +/- 24.95 min. Two cases had complications, which required surgical management, while four cases (9.1%) exhibited recurrence. The disease-free survival rate at 5 years was 90.9%. The sub-division analysis showed that Stage Ia2 and stage Ib1 patient sub-group showed better DFS than that of the stage Ib2 patient sub-group. The learning curve analysis showed that the CUSUM-T initially peaks at the sixth case then gradually decreases before rising and peaking at the 24th case. After 24th case, the CUSUM-T gradually decreases and reaches zero. Conclusion: The surgical outcomes of RSRH for early-stage cervical cancer treatment were safe and acceptable. However, RSRH could be considered carefully only in well-selected patient groups. Large-scale prospective studies are necessary in the future to validate the results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available