4.6 Article

Robotic single site staging in endometrial cancer: A multi-institution study

期刊

EJSO
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 1506-1511

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.08.014

关键词

Robotic single site hysterectomy; Minimally invasive surgery; Endometrial cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and the safety of robotic single site hysterectomy (RSSH) plus or less pelvic lymphadenectomy in FIGO stage I-II endometrial cancer. Materials and methods: We prospectively collected patient demographics, operative times, complications, pathologic results, and length of stay on all patients who underwent RSSH plus or less pelvic lymphadenectomy for clinical FIGO stage I or occult stage II endometrial carcinoma. Results: From January 2012 to February 2015, 125 patients were included in our study. The median age of the patients was 59 years (range, 35-84 years) and the median body mass index was 27 kg/m(2) (range, 19-52 kg/m2). One patient was converted to vaginal surgery due to problems of hypercapnia. The median docking time, console time, and total operative time was 11 min (range, 4-40 min), 80 min (range, 20-240 min) and 122 min (range, 35-282 min), respectively. The median blood loss was 50 ml (range, 10-250 ml). No laparoscopic/laparotomic conversion was registered. Twenty one patients underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy (16.8%) and the median pelvic lymph nodes was 13 (range, 3-32). The median time to discharge was 2 days (range, 1-3 days). No intra-operative complications occurred, while we observed 10 (8%) early post-operative complications. Conclusion: RSSH plus or less pelvic lymphadenectomy is technically feasible, safe and reproducible and could be the treatment of choice for patients affected by FIGO stage I-II endometrial cancer. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据