The Influence of Surgical Complexity and Center Experience on Postoperative Morbidity After Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology: Lessons Learned from the ROBOGYN-1004 Trial

BACKGROUND

This study was a secondary analysis of the ROBOGYN-1004 trial conducted between 2010 and 2015. The study aimed to identify factors that affect postoperative morbidity after either robot-assisted laparoscopy (RL) or conventional laparoscopy (CL) in gynecologic oncology.

METHODS

The study used two-level logistic regression analyses to evaluate the prognostic and predictive value of patient, surgery, and center characteristics in predicting severe postoperative morbidity 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

This analysis included 368 patients. Severe morbidity occurred in 49 (28 %) of 176 patients who underwent RL versus 41 (21 %) of 192 patients who underwent CL (p = 0.15). In the multivariate analysis, after adjustment for the treatment group (RL vs CL), the risk of severe morbidity increased significantly for patients who had poorer performance status, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.62 for the 1-point difference in the WHO performance score (95 % CI 1.06-2.47; p = 0.027) and according to the type of surgery (p < 0.001). A focus on complex surgical acts showed significant more morbidity in the RL group than in the CL group at the less experienced centers (OR, 3.31; 95 % CI 1.0-11; p = 0.05) compared with no impact at the experienced centers (OR, 0.87; 95 % CI 0.38-1.99; p = 0.75).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that the center's experience may have an impact on the risk of morbidity for patients undergoing complex robot-assisted surgical procedures.

Robotic radical hysterectomy after conization for patients with small volume early-stage cervical cancer

Laparoscopy and robotics are recommended for managing gynecological cancer, as they are associated with lower morbidity and comparable outcomes to open surgery. However, in the case of early cervical cancer, new evidence suggests worse oncological outcomes with these approaches compared to open surgery, though the limited number of robotic cases makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions for this particular approach. The prior conization has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of tumor spillage and contamination during minimally invasive (MIS) radical hysterectomy (RH). Retrospective studies have indicated that undergoing conization before RH is linked to a reduced risk of recurrences, especially in cervical tumors measuring less than 2 cm. Nevertheless, these studies lack the statistical power needed to definitively establish conization as a recommended step before RH. Furthermore, these studies do not have enough cases utilizing the robotic approach and specific conclusions cannot be drawn from this technique. The question of whether a subset of cases would benefit from preoperative conization and whether conization should be performed to recommend MIS over open surgery remains unanswered. Prospective clinical trials involving women diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer <2 cm, randomized between undergoing conization before robotic RH or without prior conization are mandatory to assess the role of conization before robotic RH in cervical cancer.

Is robotic-assisted vaginectomy a better choice in vaginal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions than conventional laparoscopic surgery?

BACKGROUND

Vaginectomy has been shown to be effective for select patients with vaginal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) and is favored by gynecologists, while there are few reports on the robotic-assisted laparoscopic vaginectomy (RALV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and treatment outcomes between RALV and the conventional laparoscopic vaginectomy (CLV) for patients with vaginal HSIL.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 109 patients with vaginal HSIL who underwent either RALV (RALV group) or CLV (CLV group) from December 2013 to May 2022. The operative data, homogeneous HPV infection regression rate and vaginal HSIL regression rate were compared between the two groups. Student's t-test, the Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson χ2 test or the Fisher exact test, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional-hazards models were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

There were 32 patients in the RALV group and 77 patients in the CLV group. Compared with the CLV group, patients in the RALV group demonstrated less estimated blood loss (41.6 ± 40.3 mL vs. 68.1 ± 56.4 mL, P = 0.017), lower intraoperative complications rate (6.3% vs. 24.7%, P = 0.026), and shorter flatus passing time (2.0 (1.0-2.0) vs. 2.0 (2.0-2.0), P < 0.001), postoperative catheterization time (2.0 (2.0-3.0) vs. 4.0 (2.0-6.0), P = 0.001) and postoperative hospitalization time (4.0 (4.0-5.0) vs. 5.0 (4.0-6.0), P = 0.020). In addition, the treatment outcomes showed that both RALV group and CLV group had high homogeneous HPV infection regression rate (90.0% vs. 92.0%, P > 0.999) and vaginal HSIL regression rate (96.7% vs. 94.7%, P = 0.805) after vaginectomy. However, the RALV group had significantly higher hospital costs than that in the CLV group (53035.1 ± 9539.0 yuan vs. 32706.8 ± 6659.2 yuan, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both RALV and CLV can achieve satisfactory treatment outcomes, while RALV has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, fewer intraoperative complications rate and faster postoperative recovery. Robotic-assisted surgery has the potential to become a better choice for vaginectomy in patients with vaginal HSIL without regard to the burden of hospital costs.

Early and Long-term Complications of Robotic Assisted Laparoscopy in Infants and Children

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy still lacks wide acceptance in infants and children. We developed the service and report the largest single institution experience of complications over a period of 11 years.

METHODS

Between March 2006 and May 2017, consecutive infants and children who underwent robotic assisted laparoscopy under the care of two laparoscopic surgeons were studied. Data for patients, surgeons, year of surgery, operation, and timing, nature, grades of complications were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 601 robotic procedures (45 different types) were carried out in 539 patients. Of these 31 (5.8%) were converted, none for operative complications. These and another 4 with complicated co-morbidity were excluded, leaving 504 patients for further analysis. There were 60 (11.9%) complications in 57 (11.3%) patients. Mean (SD) age was 7.7 years -/+5.1 with the youngest being 4 weeks. Concomitant or bilateral robotic and non-robotic procedures took place in 8.1% and 13.3% of patients respectively. Significant medical co-morbidity and abdominal scarring were present in 29% and 14.9% of patients respectively. Complications occurred in theatre 1.6%, hospital 5.6%, 28 days 1.2%, and late 3.6%. Mean follow up was 7.6 years -/+ 3.1 SD. Over-all postoperative complication rate was 10.3%: CD grade I 6.5% (33), II 0.6% (3), and IIIa/b 3.2% (16) which included 1.4% (7) re-do surgery. Most (11/16) grade III occurred late. There were no bleeding, grade IV or V complications, surgical mortality, or technology related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications are low even during the learning phase and while developing the new technique. Most complications occurred early and were minor. Most high-grade complications presented late.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

2B.

Survival outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopy versus conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RALS) has gained widespread acceptance in the field of gynecological oncology. However, whether the prognosis of endometrial cancer after RALS is superior to conventional laparoscopy (CLS) and laparotomy (LT) remains inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term survival outcomes of RALS with CLS and LT for endometrial cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE and Web of Science) until May 24, 2022, followed by a manual search. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, publications investigating long-term survival outcomes after RALS vs CLS or LT in endometrial cancer patients were collected. The primary outcomes included overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Fixed effects models or random effects models were employed to calculate the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as appropriate. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed.

RESULTS

RALS and CLS had no difference in OS (HR = 0.962, 95% CI: 0.922-1.004), RFS (HR = 1.096, 95% CI: 0.947-1.296), and DSS (HR = 1.489, 95% CI: 0.713-3.107) for endometrial cancer; however, RALS was significantly associated with favorable OS (HR = 0.682, 95% CI: 0.576-0.807), RFS (HR = 0.793, 95% CI: 0.653-0.964), and DSS (HR = 0.441, 95% CI: 0.298-0.652) when compared with LT. In the subgroup analysis of effect measures and follow-up length, RALS showed comparable or superior RFS/OS to CLS and LT. In early-stage endometrial cancer patients, RALS had similar OS but worse RFS than CLS.

CONCLUSIONS

RALS is safe in the management of endometrial cancer, with long-term oncological outcomes equivalent to CLS and superior to LT.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy living donor nephrectomy: Technique and results of a monocentric retrospective series

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted nephrectomy for living kidney donation (LKD) has been described in the literature as a safe and reproducible technique in high volume centers with extensive robotic surgery experience. Any surgical procedure in a healthy individual ought to be safe in regards to complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Robotic-assisted Living Donor Nephrectomy (RLDN) experience in a robotic surgery expert center.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study from 11/2011 and 12/2019. In total, 118 consecutive Living Donor (LD) kidney transplants were performed at our institution. All the procedures were performed by robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach. Extraction was performed by iliac (IE), vaginal (VE) or umbilical extraction (UE). The left kidney was preferred even if the vascular anatomy was not modal.

RESULTS

For donors: the median operative time was 120min with 50mL of blood loss. The median warm ischemia time was 4min, with a non-significant shorter duration with the UE (4min) in comparison with IE or VE (5min). Nine patients had postoperative complications including 1 grade II (blood transfusion) and 1 grade IIIb (vaginal bleeding after VE). None of our procedures were converted to open surgeries and no deaths were reported. For the recipients: 1.7% presented delayed graft function; their median GFR at 1 year was 61mL/min/1.73m².

CONCLUSION

RLDN in an expert center appears to be a safe technique. The advantages of the robot device in terms of ergonomy don't hamper the surgical outcomes. Donor, recipient and graft survivals seem comparable to the reported laparoscopic outcomes in the literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Robotic Complex Fundoplication in Patients at High-Risk to Fail

Background:

This study was undertaken to analyze our outcomes after robotic fundoplication for GERD in patients with failed antireflux procedures, with type IV (i.e., giant) hiatal hernias, or after extensive intra-abdominal surgery with mesh, and to compare our results to outcomes predicted by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator and to national outcomes reported by NSQIP.

Methods:

100 patients undergoing robotic fundoplication for the aforementioned factors were prospectively followed.

Results:

100 patients, aged 67 (67 ± 10.3) years with body mass index (BMI) of 26 (25 ± 2.9) kg/m² underwent robotic fundoplication for failed antireflux fundoplications (43%), type IV hiatal hernias (31%), or after extensive intra-abdominal surgery with mesh (26%). Operative duration was 184 (196 ± 74.3) min with an estimated blood loss of 24 (51 ± 82.9) mL. Length of stay was 1 (2 ± 3.6) day. Two patients developed postoperative ileus. Two patients were readmitted within 30 days for nausea.

Nationally reported outcomes and those predicted by NSQIP were similar. When comparing our actual outcomes to predicted and national NSQIP outcomes, actual outcomes were superior for serious complications, any complications, pneumonia, surgical site infection, deep vein thrombosis, readmission, return to OR, and sepsis (P < 0.05); our actual outcomes were not worse for renal failure, deaths, cardiac complications, and discharge to a nursing facility.

Conclusions:

Our patients were not a selective group; rather they were more complex than reported in NSQIP. Most of our results after robotic fundoplication were superior to predicted and national outcomes. The utilization of the robotic platform for complex operations and fundoplications to treat patients with GERD is safe and efficacious.

Surgeons' muscle load during robotic-assisted laparoscopy performed with a regular office chair and the preferred of two ergonomic chairs: A pilot study

Surgeons work in awkward work postures and have high precision demands - well-known risk factors for musculoskeletal pain. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy is expected to be less demanding compared to conventional laparoscopy; however, studies indicate that robotic-assisted laparoscopy is also associated with poor ergonomics and musculoskeletal pain. The ergonomic condition in the robotic console is partially dependent upon the chair provided, which often is a regular office chair. Our study quantified and compared the muscular load during robotic-assisted laparoscopy using one of two custom built ergonomic chairs and a regular office chair. The results demonstrated no differences that could be considered clinically relevant. Overall, the study showed high levels of static and mean muscular activity, increased perceived physical exertion from pre-to-post surgery, and moderate to high risk for musculoskeletal injuries measured by the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment worksheet. Authors advocate for further investigation in surgeons' ergonomics and physical work demands in robotic surgery.

'Money for nothing'. The role of robotic-assisted laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis

Despite higher costs for robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) than standard laparoscopy (SL), RAL treatment of endometriosis is performed without established indications. PubMed/MEDLINE was searched for 'robotic surgery' and 'endometriosis' or 'gynaecological benign disease' from January 2000 to December 2016. Full-length studies in English reporting original data were considered. Among 178 articles retrieved, 17 were eligible: 11 non-comparative (RAL only) and six comparative (RAL versus SL). Non-comparative studies included 445 patients. Mean operating time, blood loss and hospital stay were 226 min, 168 ml and 4 days. Major complications and laparotomy conversions were 3.1% and 1.3%. Eight studies reported pain improvement at 15-month follow-up. Comparative studies were all retrospective; 749 women underwent RAL and 705 SL. Operating time was longer for RAL in five studies. Major complications and laparotomy conversions for RAL and SL were 1.5% versus 0.3% and 0.3% versus 0.5%. One study reported pain reduction for RAL at 6-month follow-up. RAL treatment of endometriosis did not provide benefits over SL, overall and among subgroups of women with severe endometriosis, peritoneal endometriosis and obesity. Available evidence is low-quality, and data regarding long-term pain relief and pregnancy rates are lacking. RAL treatment of endometriosis should be performed only within controlled studies.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in reproductive surgery: a contemporary review

Robotic surgery is a conceptual fusion of the conventional open surgery and the minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery. We reviewed the current role of robotic-assisted laparoscopy in the field of reproductive surgery by a literature search in PubMed database. We analyzed the reported advantages and limitations of the use of robotics in reproductive surgeries like myomectomy, tubal reanastomosis, endometriosis, ovarian tissue cryopreservation, and ovarian transposition. Overall, robotic assistance in reproductive surgery resulted in decreased blood loss, less post-operative pain, shorter hospital stay, and faster convalescence, whereas reproductive outcomes were similar to open/laparoscopic approaches. The main drawbacks of robotic surgery were higher cost and longer operating times. It is as safe and effective as the conventional laparoscopy and represents a reasonable alternate to abdominal approach. Procedures that are technically challenging with the conventional laparoscopy can be performed with robotic assistance. It has advantages of improved visualization and Endowrist™ movements allowing precise suturing. This helps to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy, especially in complicated procedures, and may shorten the steep learning curve in minimal invasive surgery. Randomized controlled trials looking at both short- and long-term outcomes are warranted to strengthen the role of robotic surgery in the field of reproductive surgery.

Single-port Robotic Pelvic Bulky Lymph Node Resection: A Case Report

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To report the feasibility of bulky pelvic lymph node resection with robotic-assisted single-port laparoscopy in a patient with cervical cancer before chemoradiation therapy.

DESIGN

Resection of pelvic bulky lymph nodes with a narrated video of da Vinci single-port platform surgery (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) (Canadian Task Force classification III).

SETTING

Although not enough evidence exists to reveal that single-site surgery is better than traditional endoscopic surgery, several studies have suggested that single-site robotic surgery has certain advantages such as less postoperative analgesic use, shorter hospital stay, and quicker recovery. Furthermore, robotic single-site surgery has evolved single-site procedures. Compared with the single-port laparoendoscopic procedure, the robotic-assisted single-port laparoscopic procedure offers some advantages to minimally invasive surgery such as greater dexterity, 3-dimensional visualization, and fewer instrument clashes. These advantages make robotic single-port surgery more preferable; nevertheless, the lack of articulating instruments and the low quality of optical exposure are still challenges. Robotic single-port pelvic lymphadenectomy was first described by Tateo et al [1] in an endometrial carcinoma patient. We present a robotic single-port pelvic bulky lymph node resection in an advanced cervical cancer patient. Even though current data are controversial about removing bulky lymph nodes in patients with advanced cervical cancer, some studies have recommended that debulking of tumor-involved lymph nodes before chemoradiation may be benefical for these patients (Leblanc et al [2], Marnitz et al [3]). In our case, the patient underwent robotic-assisted single-port laparoscopy using the da Vinci Single-Site platform. The abdominal cavity was insufflated from a 3-cm umblical incision, and a 5-lumen single port was inserted. Then, an 8.5-mm 3-dimensional camera was inserted through the port, and for dissection and resection 5-mm bipolar fenestrated forceps and a monopolar hook were used. After resection, the bulky lymph nodes were taken out with an endoscopic bag through the assistant port lumen. Additionally, it is important to remember that single-site procedures are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for lymphadenectomy.

PATIENTS

A 46-year-old patient diagnosed with advanced-stage cervical cancer (Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique stage IIIB) presented with bilateral pelvic lymph node metastasis revealed by pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. The patient had no history of prior surgery or comorbidity. We decided to perform resection of the pelvic lymph nodes with a robotic-assisted single-site laparoscopic procedure before chemoradiation threapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Excision of pelvic bulky lymph nodes using robotic-assisted single-port laparoscopy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The total operating time was 170 minutes (from docking to the end of the extubation), the estimated blood loss was 30 mL, and no complications occurred. The patient was discharged the day after surgery. The histopathologic examination revealed squamous cell carcinoma metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted single-port surgery seems to be an applicable and alternative technique to perform the resection of bulky pelvic lymph nodes in patients with advanced cervical cancer before chemoradiation therapy.

Risk factors for robotic gynecologic procedures requiring conversion to other surgical procedures

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of, and risk factors for, conversion from robotic gynecologic procedures to other procedure types.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study included data from women who underwent any robotic gynecologic procedures between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012 at a tertiary care referral center in the USA. Demographic data, perioperative data, and surgeon experience (monthly case volume) data were retrieved; potential risk factors were compared between robotic procedures that were converted to other procedures and those completed as robotic procedures.

RESULTS

There were 942 robotic procedures during the study period. Conversion from robotic to any other type of procedure was recorded for 47 (5.0%, 95% confidence interval 3.8-6.6) procedures and robotic-to-open-surgery conversion occurred in 16 (1.7%, 95% confidence interval 1.0-2.7) procedures. Conversion from robotic surgery to another approach was associated with higher body mass index (P<0.001), previous laparotomy (P=0.042), and surgeons having a lower monthly robotic surgical case volume (P=0.011). Asthma (P=0.008), intra-operative bowel injury (P<0.001), intra-operative vascular injury (P=0.003), and single-port robotic surgery (P=0.034) were associated with increased odds of requiring conversion from robotic procedures.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of conversion from robotic surgery to laparotomy was low. Higher body mass index, previous laparotomy, history of asthma, using a single-port approach, and surgeon case volume were associated with the risk of conversion.

Cost analysis when open surgeons perform minimally invasive hysterectomy

Background and Objective:

The costs to perform a hysterectomy are widely variable. Our objective was to determine hysterectomy costs by route and whether traditionally open surgeons lower costs when performing laparoscopy versus robotics.

Methods:

Hysterectomy costs including subcategories were collected from 2011 to 2013. Costs were skewed, so 2 statistical transformations were performed. Costs were compared by surgeon classification (open, laparoscopic, or robotic) and surgery route.

Results:

A total of 4,871 hysterectomies were performed: 34.2% open, 50.7% laparoscopic, and 15.1% robotic. Laparoscopic hysterectomy had the lowest total costs (P < .001). By cost subcategory, laparoscopic hysterectomy was lower than robotic hysterectomy in 6 and higher in 1. When performing robotic hysterectomy, open and robotic surgeon costs were similar. With laparoscopic hysterectomy, open surgeons had higher costs than laparoscopic surgeons for 1 of 2 statistical transformations (P = .007). Open surgeons had lower costs performing laparoscopic hysterectomy than robotic hysterectomy with robotic maintenance and depreciation included (P < .001) but similar costs if these variables were excluded.

Conclusion:

Although laparoscopic hysterectomy had lowest costs overall, robotics may be no more costly than laparoscopic hysterectomy when performed by surgeons who predominantly perform open hysterectomy.

Single-site Versus Multiport Robotic Hysterectomy in Benign Gynecologic Diseases: A Retrospective Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes and Cost Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcomes and costs of robotic-assisted hysterectomy with the single-site (RSSH) or multiport approach (RH).

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database (Canadian Task Force classification II1).

SETTING

A university hospital.

PATIENTS

Consecutive women who underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for the treatment of benign gynecologic diseases.

INTERVENTIONS

Data on surgical approach, surgical outcomes, and costs were collected in a prospective database and retrospectively analyzed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The total operative time, console time, docking time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, and surgical complications rate were compared between the 2 study groups. Cost analysis was performed. One hundred four patients underwent total robotic-assisted hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (45 RSSH and 59 RH). There was no significant difference in the indications for surgery and in the characteristics of the patients between the 2 study groups. There was no significant difference between the single-site and multiport approach in console time, surgical complication rate, conversion rate, and postoperative pain. The docking time was lower in the RH group (p = .0001). The estimated blood loss and length of hospitalization were lower in the RSSH group (p = .0008 and p = .009, respectively). The cost analysis showed significant differences in favor of RSSH.

CONCLUSION

RSSH should be preferred to RH when hysterectomy is performed for benign disease because it could be at least as equally effective and safe with a potential cost reduction. However, because of the high cost and absence of clear advantages, the robotic approach should be considered only for selected patients.

Role of minimally invasive surgery in ovarian cancer

The standard treatment of ovarian cancer includes upfront surgery with intent to accurately diagnose and stage the disease and to perform maximal cytoreduction, followed by chemotherapy in most cases. Surgical staging of ovarian cancer traditionally has included exploratory laparotomy with peritoneal washings, hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, multiple peritoneal biopsies, and possible pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. In the early 1990s, pioneers in laparoscopic surgery used minimally invasive techniques to treat gynecologic cancers, including laparoscopic staging of early ovarian cancer and primary and secondary cytoreduction in advanced and recurrent disease in selected cases. Since then, the role of minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology has been continually expanding, and today advanced laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic techniques are used to evaluate and treat cervical and endometrial cancer. However, the important question about the place of the minimally invasive approach in surgical treatment of ovarian cancer remains to be evaluated and answered. Overall, the potential role of minimally invasive surgery in treatment of ovarian cancer is as follows: i) laparoscopic evaluation, diagnosis, and staging of apparent early ovarian cancer; ii) laparoscopic assessment of feasibility of upfront surgical cytoreduction to no visible disease; iii) laparoscopic debulking of advanced ovarian cancer; iv) laparoscopic reassessment in patients with complete remission after primary treatment; and v) laparoscopic assessment and cytoreduction of recurrent disease. The accurate diagnosis of suspect adnexal masses, the safety and feasibility of this surgical approach in early ovarian cancer, the promise of laparoscopy as the most accurate tool for triaging patients with advanced disease for surgery vs upfront chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and its potential in treatment of advanced cancer have been documented and therefore should be incorporated in the surgical methods of every gynecologic oncology unit and in the training programs in gynecologic oncology.