Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Robotically Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy Compared With Open Radical Hysterectomy
  1. John P. Geisler, MD,
  2. Curtis J. Orr, MD,
  3. Naumann Khurshid, MD,
  4. Garth Phibbs, MD and
  5. Kelly J. Manahan, MD
  1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH.
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to John P. Geisler, MD, University of Toledo Medical Center, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, 3120 Glendale Ave, Mail Stop 1194, Toledo, OH 43614. E-mail: john.geisler{at}


Background: Radical hysterectomy is a common and effective treatment of early cervical cancer. Modern advances include the use of robotic assistance to perform equivalent minimally invasive procedures. The purpose was to compare surgical and short-term outcomes, as well as margins, between robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy.

Methods: The first 30 cases of robotically assisted type III radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer were compared with the 30 previous cases of open type III radical hysterectomy. Body mass index, length of operation, nodal yield, margins, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and complications were all documented and compared.

Results: The 30 patients undergoing robotically assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy were similar in body mass index to the women undergoing open radical hysterectomy (34 kg/m2 robotic, 32 kg/m2 open, P = 0.22). The mean operating time was 154 minutes compared with 166 minutes in the open arm (P = 0.36). The mean blood loss was 165 mL compared with 323 mL in the open arm (P = 0.001). The mean pelvic nodal yield was 25 nodes compared with 26 nodes in the open group (P = 0.45). The mean parametrial margin size was not significantly different between groups. The mean postoperative length of stay was 1.4 days compared with 2.8 days for the open cases (P < 0.001). Urinary retention was significantly more common in the robotic arm.

Conclusions: Radical surgery for cervical cancer can be accomplished using the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Calif) with acceptable blood loss, operating time, parametrial margins, and nodal yield. Future studies need to address long-term outcomes.

  • Radical hysterectomy
  • Laparoscopic
  • Cervical cancer
  • Robotics

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.