4.2 Article

A comparison of robot-assisted and traditional radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 19-23

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-009-0131-0

Keywords

Robotic radical hysterectomy; Radical hysterectomy; da Vinci; Cervical cancer; Robotics; Gynecologic oncology; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery; Surgical techniques

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A robotics surgery program was introduced into the division of gynecologic oncology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in June 2007. A prospective database of all patients undergoing a type III radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer between July 2007 and June 2008 was collected and analyzed. Demographic data and perioperative outcomes were analyzed between a traditional and robot-assisted approach. A total of 14 patients were identified who underwent a type III radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer. Seven patients underwent robotic surgery and seven patients underwent traditional surgery. There were no significant differences in median age or body mass index between the two groups. A significant difference in blood loss between robotic (75 cc) and traditional (700 cc) surgery was detected (P = 0.002). A significant difference in hospital stay between robotic (1 day) and traditional (5 days) surgery was observed (P = 0.0007). No significant difference in operative time (260 vs. 264 min) or lymph node yield (19 and 14) was identified between the robotic and traditional approaches. No major operative complications occurred with robotic radical hysterectomy. Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss and hospital stay. Improved nodal yields, fewer operative complications, and less pain was observed with the robotic approach. Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy appears safe and feasible and further investigation is warranted in a prospective fashion.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available