Objectives To compare the clinical and oncologic outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) in patients with cervical carcinoma.
Methods A retrospective analysis of women who underwent radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer from December 2006 to December 2014 at European Institute of Oncology was performed. Patients who underwent RRH were compared with women operated on by ARH. The groups were matched by age, body mass index, tumor size, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, comorbidity, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, histology type, and tumor grade.
Results A total of 203 and 104 women who underwent RRH and ARH, respectively, were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, stage of disease, histology type, and grade of differentiation were similar between groups. Surgical time was significantly shorter in the ARH group (208 vs 282 minutes, P ⩽ 0.001). Robotic radical hysterectomy was associated with significantly less estimated blood loss (219 vs 104 mL, P = 0.001) and with significantly shorter hospital stay (5.2 vs 3.9 days, P ⩽ 0.001). Abdominal radical hysterectomy was correlated with a significantly higher number of lymph nodes removed (25.8 vs 22, P = 0.003). None of the robotic procedures required conversion to laparotomy. A significantly higher number of patients in ARH required postoperative transfusion (11 [10.5%] vs 6 [2.9%], P = 0.006). Lower extremity lymphedema was significantly higher in ARH (28 [27.5%] vs 17 [8.3%], P = 0.001). Recurrence rates as well as progression-free survival and overall survival were similar between groups at a median follow-up of 41.64 months.
Conclusions Robotic radical hysterectomy is safe and feasible and is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Although longer follow-up is needed, early data show equivalent oncologic outcomes compared with other surgical modalities.
- Robotic radical hysterectomy
- Abdominal radical hysterectomy
- Cervical cancer
- Progression-free survival
- Overall survival
Statistics from Altmetric.com
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
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.