RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Surgical and Oncological Outcome of Robotic Surgery Compared With Laparoscopic and Abdominal Surgery in the Management of Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
JF International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer
JO Int J Gynecol Cancer
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
SP 539
OP 546
DO 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000646
VO 26
IS 3
A1 Giacomo Corrado
A1 Giuseppe Cutillo
A1 Maria Saltari
A1 Emanuela Mancini
A1 Stefano Sindico
A1 Patrizia Vici
A1 Domenico Sergi
A1 Isabella Sperduti
A1 Lodovico Patrizi
A1 Giulia Pomati
A1 Ermelinda Baiocco
A1 Enrico Vizza
YR 2016
UL http://ijgc.bmj.com/content/26/3/539.abstract
AB Objective The primary aim is to evaluate the surgical and oncological outcome of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) plus pelvic lymphadenectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). The secondary aim is to compare the surgical and oncological results of RRH after NACT with a historical cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy or abdominal radical hysterectomy plus pelvic lymphadenectomy for LACC after NACT.Methods We enrolled a total of 41 patients in this study with LACC undergoing RRH, who achieved a clinical partial or complete response to NACT. The surgical and oncological outcomes of 2 historical groups were compared: the laparoscopic group (41 patients) with the laparotomic group (43 patients).Results The median estimated blood loss, operative time, and length of hospital stay were statistically significant and in favor of the robotic group. No conversion to laparotomy in the robotic group was necessary. There were no significant differences between the 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates in the minimally invasive groups; nevertheless, the robotic group showed the same recurrence rate of laparoscopic in a short-interval follow-up.Conclusions The robotic approach could be considered a feasible and safe alternative to other surgical options. Multicenter randomized clinical trials with longer follow-ups are necessary to evaluate the overall oncologic outcomes of this procedure.