Implementation of a Robotic Surgical Program in Gynaecological Oncology and Comparison with Prior Laparoscopic Series

Abstract EN

Background.

Robotic surgery in gynaecological oncology is a rapidly developing field as it offers several technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy.

An audit was performed on the outcome of robotic surgery during our learning curve and compared with recent well-established laparoscopic procedure data.

Method.

Following acquisition of the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA), we prospectively analysed all cases performed over the first six months by one experienced gynaecologist who had been appropriately trained and mentored.

Data on age, BMI, pathology, surgery type, blood loss, morbidity, return to theatre, hospital stay, and readmission rate were collected and compared with a consecutive series over the preceding 6 months performed laparoscopically by the same team.

Results.

A comparison of two consecutive series was made.

The mean age was somewhat different, 55 years in the robotic versus 69 years in the laparoscopic group, but obesity was a feature of both groups with a mean of BMI 29.3 versus 28.06, respectively.

This difference was not statistically significant ( P = 0.54 ) .

Three subgroups of minimal access surgical procedures were performed: total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingooophorectomy (TH + BSO), total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingooophorectomy plus bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy (TH + BSO + BPLND), and radical hysterectomy plus bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy (RH + BPLND).

The mean time taken to perform surgery for TH + BSO was longer in the robotic group, 151.2 min compared to 126.3 min in the laparoscopic group.

TH + BSO + BPLND surgical time was similar to 178.3 min in robotic group and 176.5 min in laparoscopic group.

RH + BPLND surgical time was similar, 263.6 min (robotic arm) and 264.0 min (laparoscopic arm).

However, the numbers in this initial analysis were small especially in the last two subgroups and do not allow for statistical analysis.

The rate of complications necessitating intervention (Clavien-Dindo classification grade 2/3) was higher in the robotic arm (22.7%) compared to the laparoscopic approach (4.5%).

The readmission rate was higher in the robotic group (18.2%) compared to the laparoscopic group (4.5%).

The return to theatre in the robotic group was 18.2% and 4.5% in laparoscopic group.

Uncomplicated robotic surgery hospital stay appeared to be shorter, 1.3 days compared to the uncomplicated laparoscopic group, 2.5 days.

There was no conversion to the open procedure in either arm.

Estimated blood loss in all cases was less than 100 mL in both groups.

Conclusion.

Robotic surgery is comparable to laparoscopic surgery in blood loss; however, the hospital stay in uncomplicated cases appears to be longer in the laparoscopic arm.

Surgical robotic time is equivalent to laparoscopic in complex cases but may be longer in cases not requiring lymph node dissection.

The robotic surgery team learning curve may be associated with higher rate of morbidity.

Further research on the benefits to the surgeon is needed to clarify the whole picture of this versatile novel surgical approach.