Although intra-operative and immediate postoperative complications of robotic surgery are relatively low, little is known about long-term morbidity. We set out to assess both short- and long-term morbidities after robotic surgery for endometrial cancer staging.
All patients who underwent robotic staging for EMCA between 2006 and 2009 from two institutions were identified. Patient charts were retrospectively reviewed for surgical complications and postoperative morbidities.
Five hundred three patients were identified. No differences in complication rates were found between 2006-2007 and 2008-2009, even though the median BMI increased from 29.9 (range 19-52) to 32 (range 17-70) (p=0.03). 6.4% of cases were converted to laparotomy. Median length of stay was one day (range 1-46). No cystotomies, two enterotomies, one ureteric injury, and five vessel injuries occurred (1.6% intra-operative complications). Thirty-eight (7.6%) patients developed major postoperative complications, 11 (2.2%) had wound infections, and 15 (3%) required a transfusion in the 30-day peri-operative period. The total venous thromboembolism (VTE) rate for robotic cases was 1.7%. Partial cuff dehiscence managed conservatively occurred in 5 (1%) and complete dehiscence requiring closure in 7 (1.4%) patients; Sixty-three (13.4%) patients who had robotic staging developed lymphedema, with 40 (8%) requiring physical therapy.
This study provides one of the largest cohorts of patients with robotic-assisted hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy (in 92.6%) with an assessment of morbidity. Our data demonstrates that robotic surgical staging can be safely performed with a low risk of short-term complications and lymphedema is the most frequent long-term morbidity.
". Perioperative surgical transfusion rates in gynecologic oncology patients fluctuate greatly with some studies reporting rates as low as 3%  and others as high as 77%   . This wide variation in practice patterns may be attributed to vague clinical practice guidelines combined with conflicting data in cancer patients. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective:
To use a large-scale multi-institutional dataset to quantify the prevalence of packed red blood cell transfusions and examine the associations between transfusion and perioperative outcomes in gynecologic cancer surgery.
The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) participant use file was queried for all gynecologic cancer cases between 2010 and 2012. Demographic, preoperative and intraoperative variables were compared between transfusion and non-transfusion groups using chi-squared, Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. The primary endpoint was 30-day composite morbidity. Secondary endpoints included composite surgical site infections, mortality and length of stay.
A total of 8519 patients were analyzed, and 13.8% received a packed red blood cell transfusion. In the multivariate analysis, after adjusting for key clinical and perioperative factors, including preoperative anemia and case magnitude, transfusion was associated with higher composite morbidity (OR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.5-2.24), surgical site infections (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.39-2.35), mortality (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.80-6.36) and length of hospital stay (3.02 days v. 7.17 days, P < 0.001).
Blood transfusions are associated with increased surgical wound infections, composite morbidity and mortality. Based on our analysis of the NSQIP database, transfusion practices in gynecologic cancer should be scrutinized. Examination of institutional practices and creation of transfusion guidelines for gynecologic malignancies could potentially result in better utilization of blood bank resources and clinical outcomes among patients.
"Postoperative lymphedema occurred in 12.7% of patients, with only 1.8% reporting severe symptoms. Forty-five (8.9%) patients were readmitted with surgery related complications, with the primary reasons being vaginal cuff complications followed by ileus . From this study we can counsel patients about the morbidity rates associated with robotic surgery for endometrial cancer and conclude that the overall intraoperative and postoperative complication rates following robotic surgery are low. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Minimally invasive surgery has been utilized in the field of obstetrics and gynecology as far back as the 1940s when culdoscopy was first introduced as a visualization tool. Gynecologists then began to employ minimally invasive surgery for adhesiolysis and obtaining biopsies but then expanded its use to include procedures such as tubal sterilization (Clyman (1963), L. E. Smale and M. L. Smale (1973), Thompson and Wheeless (1971), Peterson and Behrman (1971)). With advances in instrumentation, the first laparoscopic hysterectomy was successfully performed in 1989 by Reich et al. At the same time, minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology was being developed alongside its benign counterpart. In the 1975s, Rosenoff et al. reported using peritoneoscopy for pretreatment evaluation in ovarian cancer, and Spinelli et al. reported on using laparoscopy for the staging of ovarian cancer. In 1993, Nichols used operative laparoscopy to perform pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer patients. The initial goals of minimally invasive surgery, not dissimilar to those of modern medicine, were to decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with surgery and therefore improve patient outcomes and patient satisfaction. This review will summarize the history and use of minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology and also highlight new minimally invasive surgical approaches currently in development.
ISRN obstetrics and gynecology 08/2013; 2013(3):312982. DOI:10.1155/2013/312982
"Both institutions gathered clinical data in a tumor registry throughout the study period so that all patients treated were available for analysis. The surgical procedures were relatively uniform between institutions with respect to technique, adequacy of staging, and morbidity . The majority of patients had stage I disease and endometrioid histology, similar to the prospective LAP2 trial. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objectives:
To evaluate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH) for uterine malignancies.
Medical records from 372 patients with uterine malignancies who underwent RALH from 3/06 to 3/09 at two institutions were reviewed for clinico-pathologic data, adjuvant therapies, disease recurrence, and survival. Median follow-up for survival analysis was 31 ± 14 months. Thirty (8.1%) patients were lost to follow-up before 12 months and censored from the recurrence analysis.
Mean age and BMI of 372 patients was 61.8 ± 9.8 years and 32.2 ± 8.4 kg/m(2) (range 19-70). Robotic procedures included RALH 16 (4.3%), RALH with pelvic lymphadenectomy (PL) 96 (25.8%), and RALH with pelvic-and-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) 252 (67.7%) cases. Histology included 319 (85.8%) endometrioid and 53 (12.6%) high-risk histologies. Mean pelvic and aortic lymph node counts were 16.8 ± 8.7 and 8.4 ± 4.5, respectively. Lymph node metastases were identified in 26 (7.3%) cases. Adjuvant therapies were prescribed for 108 (29.1%) of patients: 7.8% brachytherapy, 1.9% pelvic radiation+brachytherapy, 7.8% chemotherapy, 11.6% chemotherapy+radiation. Risk of recurrence for all patients was 8.3% and 17 (4.6%) patients died of disease. The estimated 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) for the entire study group was 89.3% and the estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) was 89.1%, compared to 92.5% and 93.4% for the endometrioid sub-set.
Patients with endometrial cancer undergoing robotic hysterectomy with staging lymphadenectomies during our 3-years of robotic experience had low-risk for recurrence and excellent disease-specific survival at a median follow-up time of 31 months.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.