Chen L, Liu LP, Wen N, Qiao X, Meng YG. Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. World J Clin Cases 2019; 7(20): 3185-3193 [PMID: 31667168 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i20.3185]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Yuan-Guang Meng, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, No. 28, Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100853, China. mengyg6512@163.com
Research Domain of This Article
Medicine, Research & Experimental
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Clin Cases. Oct 26, 2019; 7(20): 3185-3193 Published online Oct 26, 2019. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i20.3185
Comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer
Li Chen, Li-Ping Liu, Na Wen, Xiao Qiao, Yuan-Guang Meng
Li Chen, Na Wen, Yuan-Guang Meng, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
Li-Ping Liu, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Central Hospital of Baoding, Baoding 071000, Hebei Province, China
Xiao Qiao, Medical Big Data Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
Author contributions: Chen L and Liu LP contributed equally to this work and should be considered as co-first authors; Chen L and Meng YG performed the research and wrote the paper; Wen N and Qiao X contributed data collection and analytic tools.
Institutional review board statement: All specimens from the patients were obtained after their informed consent and ethical permission was obtained for participation in the study.
Informed consent statement: The patient’s legal guardian provided written informed consent prior to study enrollment.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Yuan-Guang Meng, MD, PhD, Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, No. 28, Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100853, China. mengyg6512@163.com
Telephone: +86-10-66938443 Fax: +86-10-66938443
Received: June 11, 2019 Peer-review started: June 18, 2019 First decision: July 30, 2019 Revised: August 24, 2019 Accepted: September 9, 2019 Article in press: September 9, 2019 Published online: October 26, 2019 Processing time: 137 Days and 13.8 Hours
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background
The da Vinci robotic surgery system somewhat overcomes the shortcomings of LRH and has greater accuracy and stability for the operation. Thus, it has been widely used in the treatment of gynecological diseases
Research motivation
This study was retrospectively performed to analyze the perioperative conditions, complications, and short-term and long-term effects in patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) at our center from February 2014 to December 2018.
Research objectives
To analyze the perioperative conditions, complications, and short-term and long-term effects in patients undergoing RRH and LRH.
Research methods
The clinical efficacy, safety, and feasibility of RRH and LRH were analyzed and compared.
Research results
The complication rate was significantly lower in the RRH group than in the LRH group. There was no significant difference in follow-up period (P = 0.658). The total recurrence rates were 15.7% and 12% in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively. The progression-free survival time was 28.91 ± 15.68 mo and 28.34 ± 15.13 mo in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.669). The overall survival (OS) rates were 92.13% and 94.45% in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.292). The OS time was 29.87 ± 15.92 mo and 29.41 ± 15.14 mo in the RRH and LRH groups, respectively (P = 0.732). The survival curves and the progression-free survival curves were not statistically significantly different between the two groups.
Research conclusions
The operative time and blood loss were significantly less in the RRH group than in the LRH group. The two groups had similar complication rats, OS, and progression-free survival time.
Research perspectives
RRH can achieve similar long-term outcome to LRH with less operative time and less blood loss.
