Outcome of robot-assisted surgery for stage IA endometrial cancer compared to open and laparoscopic surgeries: A retrospective study at a single institution

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3890554/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Outcome of robot-assisted surgery for stage IA endometrial cancer compared to open and laparoscopic surgeries: A retrospective study at a single institution

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3890554/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 23 Mar, 2024

Read the published version in Journal of Robotic Surgery →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Few studies have compared the efficacy of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgeries for endometrial cancer. When considering the position of robotic surgery in Japan, it was necessary to determine whether it was effective or not. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these three types of surgeries for early-stage endometrial cancer.

Methods

In total, 175 patients with endometrial cancer of preoperative stage IA, who had undergone laparotomic (n=80), laparoscopic (n=40), or robot-assisted (n=55) modified radical hysterectomy at our hospital from 2010 to 2022, were included; surgical outcomes, perioperative complications, and prognoses were compared. Total operative and console times for robot-assisted surgery between patients who did or did not undergo pelvic lymphadenectomy were assessed.

Results

The robot-assisted group had the shortest total operative time. The estimated blood loss was lower in the laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups than in the laparotomy group. In advanced postoperative stage IA cases, there were no differences in progression-free and overall survival among the three groups. In the robot-assisted group, the operative time decreased as the number of operations increased; the learning curve was reached after 10 cases each of patients with and without pelvic lymphadenectomy. The frequency of perioperative complications of Clavien–Dindo classification Grade 1 or higher was the lowest in the robot-assisted group (p=0.02). There were no complications of Clavien–Dindo classification Grade 2 or higher in the robot-assisted group.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted surgery for stage IA endometrial cancer, a minimally invasive procedure, has fewer operative times and complications than those of laparoscopic and open surgeries in a single institution in JAPAN.

endometrial cancer

robot-assisted surgery

laparoscopic surgery

open surgery

In 2009, the LAP2 trial demonstrated the efficacy of laparoscopic (LA) surgery for endometrial cancer [1]. A subsequent study reported the effectiveness of robot-assisted (RA) surgery for recurrent low-risk endometrial cancer [2]. In Japan, LA surgery started being covered under insurance as a surgical treatment for early-stage endometrial cancer in 2014, and RA surgery started being covered in 2018. RA surgery is widely used in many facilities [3]. This surgery is an option comparable to LA surgery, as it is a minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for early-stage endometrial cancer according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines (2017) [4]. Compared with LA surgery, RA surgery has several advantages, including an expanded field of view in the abdominal cavity, increased control of the camera by the surgeon, and few restrictions on the range of motion of the instruments. Furthermore, it is useful in gynecological surgery, including lymph node dissection and vaginal dissection suturing. Robot-assisted surgery is a feasible option for MIS as it significantly enhances a patient’s quality of life [5]. In fact, it has been reported to be comparable to conventional open surgery in terms of the oncological outcomes for endometrial cancer. Although there are several reports comparing RA, LA, and open surgery for endometrial cancer, there are few studies comparing the three types of surgery limited to early-stage cases [6, 7]. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of RA surgery for stage IA endometrial cancer performed at our hospital and demonstrate the superiority of RA surgery over other procedures.

We included 175 patients with preoperative stage IA endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) who underwent laparotomic (n = 80), LA (n = 40), or RA (n = 55) modified radical hysterectomy at our hospital between 2010 and 2022. In our hospital, we opted for LA from 2014 to 2016, RA from 2019 onward, and OP for the rest of the study period. For LA, we used the five-port diamond method with a 12-mm camera port in the umbilicus and a 12-mm assist port on the left side of the abdomen.

We performed RA using the da Vinci X or Xi Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). A camera port was placed 3 cm above the umbilicus, with the right lateral abdomen 6–7 cm and 12–14 cm from the camera port, and 12 cm to the left at the umbilical level from the camera port, and an assist port at 4.5 cm head vertically from the midpoint of the camera and the left port. Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in all patients in the OP and LA groups, and in 36 patients (65.4%) in the RA group. Since 2022, pelvic lymphadenectomy has not been performed for patients with stage IA endometrial cancer with tumors less than 2 cm in diameter and without myometrial invasion; hence, the number of patients who did not undergo pelvic lymphadenectomy has increased recently. We retrospectively compared the surgical outcomes, perioperative complications, and prognoses of the three techniques in patients who underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy. Furthermore, the total operative and console times of RA were investigated separately with or without pelvic lymphadenectomy. Perioperative complications were analyzed using the Clavien–Dindo (CD) classification.

All surgeries were performed by gynecologic oncologists certified by the Japanese Society of Gynaecologic Oncology. Additionally, LA and RA were performed by a gynecologic oncologist and LA surgeon certified by the Japanese Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Statistical analysis

The Mann–Whitney U-test and Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test were used to investigate the significance of the differences. For prognostic analysis, a survival curve was constructed using the log-rank test. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using the GraphPad Prism 8.3 software (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA).

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Tottori University Hospital (IRB no. 22A134). All patients provided written informed consent following institutional guidelines. All methods were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Patients’ clinical and pathological characteristics are shown in Table 1. Age and BMI did not differ among the three groups. The number of patients with postoperative advanced stage IA in the RA, LA, and OP groups were 50 (90.9%), 33 (82.5%), and 71 (88.8%), respectively. There was no significant difference in the number of cases with positive ascites cytology or vascular invasion among the groups. The follow-up period was the longest for OP, followed by LA and RA.

Table 1

Clinical and pathological characteristics of the patients of this study
Type of surgery		Robot (n = 55)	Laparoscopy (n = 40)	Open (n = 80)	p-value*
Age (year)		58 (33–87)	57 (32–77)	57 (33–77)	n.s
BMI		25.4 (16.4–51.0)	23.6 (15.9–48.8)	23.5 (18.0-44.6)	n.s
Type of surgery	RA-mRH + BSO +PLA	36	40	80	< 0.001
	RA-mRH + BSO	15	0	0
	RATLH	4	0	0
FIGO stage	IA	50	33	71	n.s
	IB	2	7	5
	II	0	0	1
	IIIC1	2	2	2
	IVB	1	0	1
Pathological subtype	SEIC	1	0	0	n.s
	Endometrioid grade1-2	54	40	78
	Others	0	0	2
Cytology of ascitic fluid	Positive	1	1	2	n.s
Cytology of ascitic fluid	Negative	54	39	78	n.s
Lymphovascular Space Invasion	Positive	7	8	10	n.s
Lymphovascular Space Invasion	Negative	48	32	70	n.s
Number of lymph nodes		24 (11–55)	29 (14–54)	23 (10–65)	< 0.05
Follow up periods		614 (532–936)	1574 (660–2256)	2939 (30-5210)	< 0.001
Data are expressed as the mean (range) or number.
*p-values robotic versus laparoscopic, robotic versus open, laparoscopic versus open surgery
Robot: robot-assisted surgery, Laparoscopy: laparoscopic surgery, Open: open surgery, BMI/: body mass index, RA-mRH; robot-assisted modified radical hysterectomy, BSO: bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, PLA: pelvic lymphadenectomy, RATLH: robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy, FIGO: International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Comparison of the three types of surgeries for patients who underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy

The surgical results of the patients who underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 1.

Table 2

Surgical results of the patients who underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy
	Robot (n = 36)		Laparoscopy (n = 40)		Open (n = 80)		p-value*
	Mean SD		Mean SD		Mean SD		p-value*
Operative time (minutes)	211.9	13.0	288.1	8.5	242.9	6.0	< 0.01
Blood loss (mL)	50.5	54.5	64.8	35.3	454.9	25.1	< 0.01
Number of lymph node dissection (n)	25.6	2.4	29.4	1.6	24	1.1	0.02
Uterine weight (g)	184.4	81.5	150.4	53.1	236.4	50.7	0.5
Days of hospital stay	5.6	0.9	6.8	0.6	12.6	0.4	< 0.01
*p-values robotic versus laparoscopic, robotic versus open, laparoscopic versus open surgery
Robot: robot-assisted surgery, Laparoscopy: laparoscopic surgery, Open: open surgery, SD: standard deviation

Among the patients who underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy, the total operative time was the shortest in the RA group, followed by that in the OP and LA groups. There was no difference in the estimated blood loss between the RA and LA groups, with a significant decrease compared with that in the OP group. The length of hospital stay was shortest in the RA group, followed by that in the LA and OP groups. The number of retrieved lymph nodes was the largest in the LA group, and there was no difference in the number of patients between the RA and OP groups.

The prognoses of the patients with advanced postoperative stage IA disease were compared. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) did not differ among the three techniques; however, the PFS was shorter in the OP group (Fig. 2). No cases of recurrence were observed in the RA group. The frequency of complications (Grade 1 or higher CD classification) was 40.0% (32 patients), 35.0% (14 patients), and 16.7% (6 patients) in the OP, LA, and RA groups, respectively (p = 0.02) (Table 3). A high incidence of wound infection and lower lymphedema was observed in the OP group. More than one complication occurred in three patients in the OP group (ileus and lower lymphedema, lymphocyst infection and venous thrombosis, abdominal wall hematoma, and external iliac vein injury). Furthermore, complications of Grade 2 or higher CD classifications were observed in 6 patients (15.0%) in the LA and 15 patients (18.8%) in the OP group, with none in the RA group.

Table 3

Perioperative complications of each surgical type
	Robot (n = 36)	Rate (%)	Laparo- scopic (n = 40)	Rate (%)	Open (n = 80)	Rate (%)	p-value*
Intra
Injury of ureter	0		0		2	2.5	0.178
Injury of bowl	0		2	2.5	0
Injury of venous	0		2	5.0	1	1.3
Transfusion	0		0		2	2.5
Heat injury of occlusive nerve	1	2.8	0		0
Total	1	2.8	4	10.0	5	6.3
Post
Wound infection	2	5.0	0		8	10.0	0.767
Infection	1	2.8	2	5.0	5	6.3
Venous thromboembolism	1	2.8	2	5.0	4	5.0
Ileus	0		0		3	3.8
Neurogenic bladder	1	2.8	0		1	1.3
Hematoma	0		0		1	1.3
Lymphedema	0		1	2.5	6	7.5
Others	0		5	12.5	2	2.5
Total	5	13.9	10	25.0	30	37.5
Age, years
31–40	1/2		1/5		1/4		0.518
41–50	2/8		2/5		8/18
51–60	3/12		6/16		12/35
61–70	0/10		2/9		8/19
71-	0/4		3/5		3/4
Total	6	16.7	14	35.0	32	40.0	0.02
*p-values robotic versus laparoscopic, robotic versus open, laparoscopic versus open surgery
Robot: robot-assisted surgery, Laparoscopy: laparoscopic surgery, Open: open surgery
Intra: intraoperative complications, Post: postoperative complications

Regarding the occurrence of complications with Grade 1 or higher CD classifications, there were no cases of complications among patients aged over 61 years in the RA group; however, complications were frequently observed in the OP group (11/23 cases, 47.8%). In contrast, the 19 patients with RA who had not undergone pelvic lymphadenectomy had no perioperative complications.

Total operative and console times for RA

Figure 3 shows the changes in the total operative and console times between patients who did and did not undergo pelvic lymphadenectomy. The total operative and console times reduced with each experience in cases of RA with and without pelvic lymphadenectomy, and the learning curve was reached after 10 cases each (approximately 20 cases in total).

In this study, RA surgery, performed at a single center by the same surgeon, showed a shorter total operative time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay than those shown by open surgery. RA surgery also showed a shorter operative time and trend toward a reduced length of hospital stay than those shown by LA surgery. The frequency of complications was the lowest in RA surgery and did not differ between LA and open surgeries. No complications occurred with RA surgery, at least in patients aged > 61 years. These results suggest that RA surgery is less invasive and more effective than open or LA surgery in the treatment of early-stage endometrial cancer.

Reports on the advantages of RA surgery for endometrial cancer have increased in recent years. Regarding the learning curve, in one study, the operative time was shorter and complications were fewer in procedures using a robotic system than those in procedures not using it [8]. In our study, the total operative time significantly decreased as the surgical experiences increased. Prior studies comparing open and LA surgery with pelvic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer also indicated that the learning curve for RA surgery can be achieved after a few cases [9, 10]. In these studies, the learning curve was achieved after approximately 20 cases, similar to the finding in our study. Thus, our results are comparable to those reported previously, and the accuracy of our surgical outcomes is worthy of consideration.

Robot-assisted surgery is associated with early discharge because of the low frequency of postoperative pain. Naixin et al. investigated the safety of same-day discharge of patients who underwent RA surgery for endometrial cancer [11]. They reported that over 80% of the patients were discharged on the day of surgery with several criteria met, including oral intake, ambulation, and postoperative Hb levels (decrease of 2 g/dL or less from baseline), and only 1.3% of the patients visited the emergency department within 30 days after surgery. In our study, many patients were discharged on the fifth postoperative day, but discharge may have been possible on the third or fourth day. However, we believe that for early discharge, it is essential to have an environment in which patients can receive medical care if any symptoms appear, as well as sufficient discharge guidance. This point is important because medical insurance systems differ among countries.

In elderly patients, open surgery is associated with an approximately 2.5-fold higher perioperative complication rate than that associated with RA surgery [12]. Antonio et al. reported that the risk of perioperative complications with RA surgery for endometrial cancer decreases as the patient’s age increases. In the present study, perioperative complications were frequently observed among patients in the open surgery group, but none were observed even among patients aged over 61 years in the RA surgery group. Elderly patients often have comorbidities, with a high risk of requiring surgery and anesthesia. Therefore, MIS is increasingly being used in this patient population. In one study comparing LA and RA surgery for elderly patients with endometrial cancer, there was no difference in perioperative complications between the two groups [13]; however, in our study, perioperative complications were less frequently observed in the RA group than those in the LA surgery group. In RA surgery, the abdominal wall is lifted when the robotic arm is connected, allowing for a lower insufflation pressure than that allowed by LA surgery. Therefore, compared with LA surgery, RA surgery is useful not only for obese patients but also for elderly patients because its effect on cardiac output and respiratory motion owing to increased abdominal pressure can be reduced with it. In Japan, the aging society is expected to progress in the future, and the reduction in complications due to RA surgery is considered to be beneficial not only to patients but also to the medical economy.

There are several limitations to this study. First, the single-center setting of this study may have introduced a bias; further, the skills of the surgeon could also have influenced our results. However, our results are comparable to those reported previously; therefore, the data can be considered generalizable. Second, there is the variable follow-up between the three groups. This is inevitable given that the different surgical techniques were used at different time points. Third, the sample size was small. Since large-scale data analyses are needed in Japan, data of registration projects need to be analyzed by relevant academic societies.

RA surgery is now commonly performed overseas, and new surgical support equipment is being developed. As the demand and popularity of RA surgery increase, the demand for safe surgical methods will also increase [12]. In the present study, the efficacy and safety of RA surgery for endometrial cancer were investigated, and it was found that RA surgery was less invasive than open and LA surgeries. Currently, RA surgery for endometrial cancer is limited to patients with a low risk of recurrence. In the future, we expect the addition of patients with a high risk of recurrence to the group of eligible patients so that a high number of patients can receive minimally invasive treatment.

Funding: No funding was received for this study.

Competing Interests: None

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [Hiroaki Komatsu]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [Ai Ikebuchi] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethical approval: This questionnaire survey did not require ethical review.

Consent to participate: All participants agreed by optout.

Consent to publish: The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication

Acknowledgements: The authors thank all the members who responded to the questionnaires.

Ethics approval

Consent to participate

Consent to publish

Acknowledgments

None.

Nevis IF, Vali B, Higgins C, Dhalla I, Urbach D, Bernardini MQ (2017) Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancers: a systematic review. J Robot Surg 11:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0621-9
Barraez D, Godoy H, McElrath T, Kredentser D, Timmins P (2015) Low incidence of port-site metastasis after robotic assisted surgery for endometrial cancer staging: descriptive analysis. J Robot Surg 9:91–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0491-y
Ran L, Jin J, Xu Y, Bu Y, Song F (2014) Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 26;9:e108361. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108361
Estape R, Lambrou N, Estape E, Vega O, Ojea T (2012) Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and staging for the treatment of endometrial cancer: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy and abdominal approaches. J Robot Surg 6:199–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-011-0290-7
Mourits MJ, Bijen CB, Arts HJ et al (2010) Safety of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in early-stage endometrial cancer: a randomized trial. Lancet Oncol 11:763–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70143-1
Fu H, Zhang J, Zhao S He N (2023) Survival outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopy versus conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 174:55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2023.04.026
Ran L, Jin J, Xu Y, Bu Y, Song F (2014) Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 9:e108361. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108361
Holloway RW, Ahmad S, DeNardis SA et al (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer: Analysis of surgical performance. Gynecol Oncol 115:447–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.08.017
Lim PC, Kang E, Park DH (2010) Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:739–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2010.07.008
Lim PC, Kang E, Park DH (2010) A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol 120:413–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.034
Zhang N, Wilson B, Enty MA et al (2022) Same-day discharge after robotic surgery for endometrial cancer. J Robot Surg 16:543–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01253-0
Raffone A, Travaglino A, Raimondo D et al (2022) Laparotomic versus robotic surgery in elderly patients with endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 157:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13766
Corrado G, Vizza E, Perrone AM et al (2021) Comparison between laparoscopic and robotic surgery in elderly patients with endometrial cancer: a retrospective multicentric study. Front Oncol 11:724886. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.724886
Uwins C, Hablase R, Assalaarachchi H et al (2022) Enhanced recovery after uterine corpus cancer surgery: a 10 year retrospective cohort study of robotic surgery in an NHS Cancer Centre. Cancers (Basel) 14:5463. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14215463

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 23 Mar, 2024

Read the published version in Journal of Robotic Surgery →

Editorial decision: Accepted
28 Feb, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
24 Jan, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
23 Jan, 2024
First submitted to journal
23 Jan, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Outcome of robot-assisted surgery for stage IA endometrial cancer compared to open and laparoscopic surgeries: A retrospective study at a single institution

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials and methods

Statistical analysis

Results

Comparison of the three types of surgeries for patients who underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy

Total operative and console times for RA

Discussion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1