Single-port versus multi-port robotic sacrocervicopexy: Establishment of a learning curve and short-term outcomes

Laparo-endoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer: A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for early-stage endometrial cancer.

METHODS

Patients with clinical stage IA, IB, grade 1-3 endometrial cancer were randomly assigned to undergo LESS or CLS. The primary endpoint was the non-inferiority of LESS to CLS in terms of operation time and the number of resected pelvic lymph nodes. We set the non-inferior margin of the operation time as within 15% (24 min) and the number of resected pelvic lymph nodes as within 20% (5.2 lymph nodes).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the LESS group (n = 53) and the CLS group (n = 54) in terms of age, weight, body mass index, parity, menopausal status, history of abdominal surgery, and preoperative CA-125 levels. The total operation time was comparable between the two groups. On average, 4.6 fewer pelvic lymph nodes were retrieved in the LESS group, which was within the non-inferiority margin. There were no significant differences in the incidence of intra- and postoperative complications, estimated blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. After a median follow-up time of 34 months (range, 2-242), the progression-free survival rates were 96.2% and 98.1% (P = 0.55) in the LESS group and the CLS group, and the overall survival rates were 98.1% and 100.0% (P = 0.31), respectively.

CONCLUSION

LESS surgical staging was non-inferior to CLS and had acceptable feasibility, safety, and efficacy for the surgical management of early-stage endometrial cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov identifier number: NCT01679522.

The robotic single-port platform for gynecologic surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis

Since the first robotic single-site hysterectomy was performed, the research focused on the use of robotic single-site surgery (RSSS) for all gynecological conditions. This review aims to examine the studies available in the literature on RSSS in gynecology both for benign and malignant indications. The systematic review was carried out in agreement with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement (PRISMA). All the articles were grouped into three sets based on the surgical indication (Group 1, 2, and 3 for benign, malignant, and mixed diseases, respectively). Two hundred and fifty total studies were analyzed, and 27 articles were included in the review. A total of 1065 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 605 patients were included in group 1, 260 in group 2, and 200 in group 3. Ten (1.7%) patients with benign pathology, 16 (6.2%) patients with malignant disease, and 5 (2.5%) patients with both diseases developed major complications. Two (0.3%) patients in group 1, 3 (1.2%) patients in group 2 and 5 (2.5%) in group 3 were converted to a different type of surgery. No significant differences were found between groups for BMI (p = 0.235), operative time (p = 0.723), estimated blood loss (EBL) (p = 0.342), and hospital stay (p = 0.146). The complications and conversions incidence through pooled analysis showed a higher general conversion rate (p = 0.012) in group 3 (3.0%) and higher complications rate (p = 0.001) in group 2 (5.3%) compared to the other groups. RSSS seems to be a feasible and safe procedure for all gynecological surgical procedures. A long-term analysis would be necessary before considering the RSSS oncologically safe for patients with malignant disease.