Robot assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with short and long term morbidity

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.

Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer

Objective

The use of robotic radical hysterectomy has greatly increased in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought to compare surgical and oncologic outcomes of women undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy compared to open radical hysterectomy.

Methods

The clinic-pathologic, treatment, and recurrence data were abstracted through an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol at 2 separate large tertiary care centers in Seattle, Swedish Medical Center and the University of Washington. Data were collected from 2001–2012. Comparisons between the robotic and open cohorts were made for complications, recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

In the study period, 109 robotic radical hysterectomies were performed. These were compared to 202 open radical hysterectomies. The groups were comparable in terms of age and body mass index (BMI). Length of stay (LOS) was considerably shorter in the robotic group (42.7 vs. 112.6 hours, p<0.001) as was estimated blood loss (EBL; 105.9 vs. 482.6 mL, p<0.001). There were more complications in the open radical hysterectomy group, 23.4% vs. 9.2% in the robotic group (p=0.002). The recurrence rate was comparable between the groups (10.1% vs. 10.4%, p=0.730). In multivariate adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was not a statistically significant predictor of PFS (p=0.230) or OS (0.85).

Conclusion

Our study, one of the largest multi-institution cohorts of patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy, suggest robotic radical hysterectomy leads to comparable oncologic outcomes in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer with improved short-term surgical outcomes such as decreased LOS and EBL.

WITHDRAWN: Robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer

This review is being withdrawn as now superceded by a new review covering both malignant an benign disease: Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu D, Dowswell T, Song H, Wang L, Shi G. Robot‐assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD011422. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2 (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2/full )

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

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) (2014, Issue 5) and the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, to complement the searches of the original malignant and benign disease reviews (conducted up to July 2010 and November 2011, respectively), from July 2010 to June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We subgrouped data according to type of procedure and pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3. We performed sensitivity analyses by excluding studies at high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs involving 517 women. Most were at low to moderate overall risk of bias; one was at high risk of bias. Four studies evaluated RAS for hysterectomy (371 women), and two studies evaluated RAS for sacrocolpopexy (146 women). All studies compared RAS with CLS, except for one study, which compared RAS with CLS or a vaginal surgical approach for hysterectomy. Confidence intervals for the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications included benefits with either approach when they were analysed together (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.99; participants = 513; studies = 6; I(2) = 74%) and separately (low-quality evidence). Moderate-quality evidence was found for the effects of RAS on intraoperative injury when compared with CLS (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.46; participants = 415; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%), along with low-quality evidence for bleeding and infection complications.Mean total operating time was consistent across procedures and on average was about 42 minutes longer in the RAS arm compared with the CLS arm (95% CI 17 to 66 minutes; participants = 294; studies = 4; I(2) = 82%; moderate-quality evidence). Mean hospital stay for hysterectomy procedures was on average about seven hours shorter in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; participants = 217; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). The estimated effect of conversion with RAS compared with CLS was imprecise (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.12; participants = 337; studies = 4; I(2) = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Limited data from two studies suggest that RAS for sacrocolpopexy may be associated with increased postoperative pain compared with CLS; this needs further investigation. We identified five ongoing trials-four of cancer surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain as to whether RAS or CLS has lower intraoperative and postoperative complication rates because of the imprecision of the effect and inconsistency among studies when they are used for hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that these procedures take longer with RAS but may be associated with a shorter hospital stay following hysterectomy. We found limited evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for surgical procedures performed for gynaecological cancer; therefore its use should be limited to clinical trials. Ongoing trials are likely to have an important impact on evidence related to the use of RAS in gynaecology.

Robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is the latest innovation in the field of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgical systems have been used to perform surgery for endometrial, cervical cancer and ovarian cancer. There is mounting evidence which demonstrates the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for gynaecological oncology.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence for and against robotic assisted surgery in gynaecological cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to July 2010) and citation lists of relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer to laparoscopic or open surgical procedures as well as RCTs comparing different types of robotic assistants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. No RCTs were identified, therefore data collection and analysis could not be performed.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were found that met the inclusion criteria. Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) are summarised and analysed, but are not discussed in the main body of the review as they present a high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Well-designed RCTs are required as only low quality evidence from CCTs is available. These studies support the use of robotic assisted surgery for endometrial cancer and cervical cancer, but these findings present a high risk of bias.