Robotic single-site surgery in management of obese patients with early-stage endometrial cancer

Ultra-minimally invasive approaches for endometrial cancer treatment: review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the outcomes and role of ultra-minimally invasive surgical approaches for treatment of women diagnosed with endometrial cancer. Although, there is no agreed definition of the term "ultraminimal," we considered the hysteroscopic surgery, single-port surgery, mini/microlaparoscopy and percutaneous laparoscopy as surgical approaches that would best fit this description.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The current systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Guidelines. We performed a literature search using MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for English-language studies published before August 1, 2020. We used the following keywords including "endometrial cancer," "endometrial malignancy," "fertility-sparing or preserving," "hysteroscopy," "hysteroscopic resection," "dilatation and curettage," "ultra-minimally invasive surgery," "progestin therapy," "hormone therapy," "single port," "single-site," "minilaparoscopy," "microlaparoscopy," "percutaneous" and "3 mm laparoscopy."

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 21 studies, reporting on 229 patients were included. 219 (95.6%) of the patients were premenopausal. Among premenopausal women, complete disease response was reported in 186 (84.9%) patients. The complete response rate was 77.1% in patients who underwent focal or extensive endometrial resection, 90.9% in patients who had the two-step approach and 88.9% in the group of patients treated with the three-step technique. Among 98 women who wished and attempted to conceive, 65 (66.3%) women became pregnant. Recurrent disease was diagnosed in 26 of 219 (11.9%) patients. No surgical complications were reported. In 10 postmenopausal patients that underwent hysteroscopic resection, no recurrences were detected after 5 years of follow-up. We identified 11 studies that reported on the use single-port laparoscopic surgery and included a total of 447 patients. The rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications was 2.6% and 5.2%, respectively. The majority of the studies did not report on the duration of follow-up or oncological outcomes. Ten studies, including 296 patients, investigated the role of single-port robotic-assisted laparoscopy. The overall rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications was 1.0% and 7.1%, respectively. Two studies, including 38 patients, reported on the role of minilaparoscopy. None of these cases required conversion to laparotomy. Data on overall survival in the cohort of patients that underwent minilaparoscopy were not reported. We found only one publication reporting on the use of percutaneous laparoscopy. This prospective study included 30 patients. No complication was reported, and with a median follow-up time of 14 months (range 12-36) no recurrences were diagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS

Several ultra-minimally invasive surgical techniques have been developed and implemented in selected patients with endometrial cancer. The results of this review support the feasibility and perioperative safety of these approaches, while long-term outcomes are not adequately studied. However, further work is required in standardization of the techniques, in determining the learning curve of the operator and establishing their oncological safety.

Evaluation of quality of life, body image and surgical outcomes of robotic total laparoscopic hysterectomy and sentinel lymph node mapping in low-risk endometrial cancer patients - A Robotic Gyne Club study

INTRODUCTION

The aims of the study were to evaluate quality of life, cosmetic results and surgical outcomes of robotic single-site and robotic multiport total laparoscopic hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node mapping in women treated for low-risk endometrial cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study is a prospective, multicenter, case-control study conducted at Ospedale Santa Chiara in Trento and Novara and Pavia University Hospitals. Seventy-six consecutive patients with a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of low-risk endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia who between January 2017 and January 2019 had undergone robotic total laparoscopic hysterectomy and sentinel lymph node mapping were included. Data on surgical outcomes, quality of life and cosmetic results were prospectively collected and analyzed based on the surgical approach with robotic single-site vs robotic multiport assistance. Patients' clinical characteristics, intra-operative parameters, sentinel lymph node mapping results and postoperative findings were prospectively recorded. Clinical follow up was performed 4 weeks and 6 and 12 months after surgery. Fifty-one patients underwent a robotic multiport procedure and 25 patients a robotic single-site surgery.

RESULTS

There was one significant difference between the two groups in terms of patient characteristics: mean body mass index (BMI) in the multiport group was 29 kg/m² vs 24.8 kg/m² in the single-site group (P value <.001). After univariate and multivariate analysis on intraoperative and postoperative findings, a shorter surgical time was observed in the single-site cohort than in the multiport group (148.7 vs 158.2 minutes, P value .0182). BMI also had a significant effect on surgical time (P = .022). No differences were seen in terms of sentinel lymph node detection: the bilateral detection rate was 96.1% for multiport (66.7% bilateral, 29.4% monolateral) and 96% for single-site (76% bilateral, 20% monolateral) procedures. No differences between the two approaches were identified with regard to postoperative complications, pain, cosmetic results or quality of life comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of low-risk endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia with total hysterectomy and sentinel lymph node mapping, the robotic single-port approach is comparable to the multiport procedure in terms of intraoperative and postoperative findings, and has an advantage in terms of shorter surgical times. Further studies are required to identify possible differences in quality of life and cosmetic results.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

BACKGROUND

This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid, on 8 January 2018. We searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov. on 16 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RAS versus CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We examined different procedures in separate comparisons and for hysterectomy subgrouped data according to type of disease (non-malignant versus malignant). When more than one study contributed data, we pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs involving 1016 women. Studies were at moderate to high overall risk of bias, and we downgraded evidence mainly due to concerns about risk of bias in the studies contributing data and imprecision of effect estimates. Procedures performed were hysterectomy (eight studies) and sacrocolpopexy (three studies). In addition, one trial examined surgical treatment for endometriosis, which included resection or hysterectomy. Among studies of women undergoing hysterectomy procedures, two studies involved malignant disease (endometrial cancer); the rest involved non-malignant disease.• RAS versus CLS (hysterectomy)Low-certainty evidence suggests there might be little or no difference in any complication rates between RAS and CLS (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.59; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 51%), intraoperative complication rates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.50; participants = 583; studies = 6; I² = 37%), postoperative complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34; participants = 629; studies = 6; I² = 44%), and blood transfusions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.94; participants = 442; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference between malignant and non-malignant disease subgroups with regard to complication rates. Only one study reported death within 30 days and no deaths occurred (very low-certainty evidence). Researchers reported no survival outcomes.Mean total operating time was longer on average in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) 41.18 minutes, 95% CI -6.17 to 88.53; participants = 148; studies = 2; I² = 80%; very low-certainty evidence), and the mean length of hospital stay was slightly shorter with RAS than with CLS (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07; participants = 192; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).• RAS versus CLS (sacrocolpopexy)Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in rates of any complications between women undergoing sacrocolpopexy by RAS or CLS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.24; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 78%), nor in intraoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.59; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 47%). Low-certainty evidence on postoperative complications suggests these might be higher with RAS (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.56; studies = 1; participants = 68). Researchers did not report blood transfusions and deaths up to 30 days.Low-certainty evidence suggests that RAS might be associated with increased operating time (MD 40.53 min, 95% CI 12.06 to 68.99; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 73%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two techniques in terms of duration of stay (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.67; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 0%).• RAS versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy)A single study with a total sample size of 20 women was included in this comparison. For most outcomes, the sample size was insufficient to show any possible differences between groups.• RAS versus CLS for endometriosisA single study with data for 73 women was included in this comparison; women with endometriosis underwent procedures ranging from relatively minor endometrial resection through hysterectomy; many of the women included in this study had undergone previous surgery for their condition. For most outcomes, event rates were low, and the sample size was insufficient to detect potential differences between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS for non-malignant disease (hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy) is of low certainty but suggests that surgical complication rates might be comparable. Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for malignant disease is more uncertain because survival data are lacking. RAS is an operator-dependent expensive technology; therefore evaluating the safety of this technology independently will present challenges.

Robotic single site versus robotic multiport hysterectomy in early endometrial cancer: a case control study

Objective

To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer.

Methods

This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay.

Results

A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06).

Conclusion

Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.