Dataset Information

Comparison Between Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery in Elderly Patients With Endometrial Cancer: A Retrospective Multicentric Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Elderly endometrial cancer (EEC) patients represent a challenging clinical situation because of the increasing number of clinical morbidities. In this setting of patients, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been shown to improve surgical and clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the peri-operative and oncological outcomes of EEC patients who had undergone laparoscopic (LS) or robotic surgery (RS).

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective multi-institutional study in which endometrial cancer patients of 70 years or older who had undergone MIS for EC from April 2002 to October 2018 were considered. Owing to the non-randomized nature of the study design and the possible allocation biases arising from the retrospective comparison between LS and RS groups, we also performed a propensity score-matched analysis (PSMA).

Results

A total of 537 patients with EC were included in the study: 346 who underwent LS and 191 who underwent RS. No significant statistical differences were found between the two groups in terms of surgical and survival outcomes. 188 were analyzed after PSMA (94 patients in the LS group were matched with 94 patients in the RS group). The median estimated blood loss was higher in the LS group (p=0.001) and the median operative time was higher in the RS group (p=0.0003). No differences emerged between LS and RS in terms of disease free survival (DFS) (p=0.890) and overall survival (OS) (p=0.683).

Conclusions

Our study showed that when compared LS and RS, RS showed lower blood losses and higher operative times. However, none of the two approaches demonstrated to be superior in terms of survival outcomes. For this reason, each patient should be evaluated individually to determine the best surgical approach.

SUBMITTER: Corrado G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8493293 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo investigate the role of minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer and determine surgical, clinical, and oncological outcomes.MethodsThis is a propensity score-matched case-control study, comparing three treatment arms: robotic gastrectomy (RG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG), open gastrectomy (OG). Data collection started after sharing a specific study protocol. Data were recorded through a tailored and protected web-based system. Primary outcomes: harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, complications rate. Among the secondary outcomes, there are: operative time, R0 resections, POD of mobilization, POD of starting liquid diet and soft solid diet. The analysis includes the evaluation of type and grade of postoperative complications. Detailed information of anastomotic leakages is also provided.ResultsThe present analysis was carried out of 1026 gastrectomies. To guarantee homogenous distribution of cases, patients in the RG, LG and OG groups were 1:1:2 matched using a propensity score analysis with a caliper = 0.2. The successful matching resulted in a total sample of 604 patients (RG = 151; LG = 151; OG = 302). The three groups showed no differences in all baseline patients characteristics, type of surgery (P = 0.42) and stage of the disease (P = 0.16). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LG (95.93 ± 119.22) and RG (117.91 ± 68.11) groups compared to the OG (127.26 ± 79.50, P = 0.002). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was similar between the RG (27.78 ± 11.45), LG (24.58 ± 13.56) and OG (25.82 ± 12.07) approach. A benefit in favor of the minimally invasive approaches was found in the length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A similar complications rate was found (P = 0.13). The leakage rate was not different (P = 0.78) between groups.ConclusionLaparoscopic and robotic surgery can be safely performed and proposed as possible alternative to open surgery. The main highlighted benefit is a faster postoperative functional recovery.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough robotics has been shown to improve outcomes in some high-difficulty surgical category patients, it is unclear if such an approach may improve outcomes in elderly patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC).ObjectiveTo compare robotic and laparotomic surgery in the treatment and staging of elderly EC patients.Materials and methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed assessing the risk of overall, intra-operative, and peri-operative complications associated with the surgical approach (laparotomic vs robotic) for elderly patients with EC by relative risk (RR). Pooled means ± standard deviation of length of stay were compared with the unpaired t test. Subgroup analyses for overall complications were performed based on different age cut-offs (>70, >65, and >75 years) and severity of complications (minor and major). A value of P less than 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsFive studies with 7629 EC patients were included. Pooled RR for robotic compared with laparotomic surgery was 0.40 (P < 0.001) for overall, 0.46 (P = 0.18) for intra-operative, and 0.43 (P < 0.001) for peri-operative complications. Pooled difference between means ± standard deviation of length of stay for robotic versus laparotomic surgery was -3.34 (P < 0.001). At subgroup analyses, pooled RR of overall complications for robotic surgery versus laparotomic surgery was 0.34 (P < 0.001) in the >70 years, 0.51 (P < 0.01) in the >65 years, 0.20 (P = 0.12) in the >75 years groups. Pooled RR was 0.50 (P = 0.1) in the minor complications subgroup, and 0.42 (P = 0.002) in the major complications subgroup.ConclusionRobotics might be a viable alternative to the laparotomic approach for EC in elderly patients because it significantly decreases the risk of overall and peri-operative complications (mainly major complications), and the length of stay when compared with laparotomy. The decrease in risk of overall complications is greater with increasing patient age.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the relative merits among robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy for patients with endometrial cancer by conducting a meta-analysis.MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison between robotic surgery and laparoscopy or between robotic surgery and laparotomy for endometrial cancer were selected. The outcome measures included operating time (OT), number of complications, length of hospital stay (LOHS), estimated blood loss (EBL), number of transfusions, total lymph nodes harvested (TLNH), and number of conversions. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using either a fixed-effects or random-effects model.ResultsTwenty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis. These studies involved a total of 4420 patients, 3403 of whom underwent both robotic surgery and laparoscopy and 1017 of whom underwent both robotic surgery and laparotomy. The EBL (p?=?0.01) and number of conversions (p?=?0.0008) were significantly lower and the number of complications (p<0.0001) was significantly higher in robotic surgery than in laparoscopy. The OT, LOHS, number of transfusions, and TLNH showed no significant differences between robotic surgery and laparoscopy. The number of complications (p<0.00001), LOHS (p<0.00001), EBL (p<0.00001), and number of transfusions (p?=?0.03) were significantly lower and the OT (p<0.00001) was significantly longer in robotic surgery than in laparotomy. The TLNH showed no significant difference between robotic surgery and laparotomy.ConclusionsRobotic surgery is generally safer and more reliable than laparoscopy and laparotomy for patients with endometrial cancer. Robotic surgery is associated with significantly lower EBL than both laparoscopy and laparotomy; fewer conversions but more complications than laparoscopy; and shorter LOHS, fewer complications, and fewer transfusions but a longer OT than laparoscopy. Further studies are required.