Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare intraoperative, pathologic and postoperative outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) to total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (TLRH) in patients with early stage cervical carcinoma. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed cases of TLRH or RRH with pelvic lymphadenectomy performed for treatment of early cervical cancer between 2000 and 2008. RESULTS: Thirty patients underwent TLRH and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer from August 2000 to June 2006. Thirteen patients underwent RRH and pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer from April 2006 to January 2008. There were no differences between groups for age, tumor histology, stage, lymphovascular space involvement or nodal status. No statistical differences were observed regarding operative time (323 vs 318 min), estimated blood loss (157 vs 200 mL), or hospital stay (2.7 vs 3.8 days). Mean pelvic lymph node count was similar in the two groups (25 vs 31). None of the robotic or laparoscopic procedures required conversion to laparotomy. The differences in major operative and postoperative complications between the two groups were not significant. All patients in both groups are alive and free of disease at the time of last follow up. CONCLUSION: Based on our experience, robotic radical hysterectomy appears to be equivalent to total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with respect to operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, and oncological outcome. We feel the intuitive nature of the robotic approach, magnification, dexterity, and flexibility combined with significant reduction in surgeon's fatigue offered by the robotic system will allow more surgeons to use a minimally invasive approach to radical hysterectomy.