Analysis of disease recurrence and survival for women with uterine malignancies undergoing robotic surgery

Brudie, Lorna A.; Backes, Floor J.; Ahmad, Sarfraz; Zhu, Xiaodong; Finkler, Neil J.; Bigsby, Glenn E.; Cohn, David E.; O’Malley, David M.; Fowler, Jeffrey M.; Holloway, Robert W.

doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.005

Cited by 41 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also CardenasGoicoechea J et al 23 found no significant differences in survival between robotic and laparoscopy surgery (3-years OS 93.3% and 93.6%, 3-years DFS 83.3% and 88.4% in robotic and laparoscopy, respectively), demonstrating parallel results to ours. In robotic surgery, Brudie LA et al 24 we reported a higher DFS in robotic surgery than literature, but a lower OS in laparoscopy surgery.…”

Section: Oncological Outcomementioning

confidence: 44%

Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in the management of endometrial cancer

Corrado¹,

Cutillo²,

Pomati

et al. 2015

European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Oncological Outcomementioning

confidence: 44%

Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in the management of endometrial cancer

Corrado¹,

Cutillo²,

Pomati

et al. 2015

European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…19 However, we found only 1 study investigating whether the robotic approach impacts the RFS and OS for patients with uterine cancer. 11 That study and the current study analyze a relatively large number of patients, and no adverse impact was found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Still, they compare favorably with the operative times published in previous studies. 11,21,22,28,29 Short-term surgical outcomes, when analyzed separately for different BMI categories, have shown no clinically relevant differences ( Table 4). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It was widely adopted by gynecological oncologists in the United States, and the majority of them use the robotic system for surgical staging in patients with uterine malignancies. 11,12 Few studies have investigated the impact of obesity on the outcomes of patients with uterine cancer, and we found no studies dedicated specifically to robotic surgery patients. The aims of this study were to evaluate short-and long-term outcomes of patients with endometrial cancer who underwent robotic surgery at our institution and to analyze how obesity and increasing body habitus impact treatment, disease recurrence, and overall survival (OS).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of Body Mass Index on Surgical Outcomes and Analysis of Disease Recurrence for Patients With Endometrial Cancer Undergoing Robotic-Assisted Staging

Menderes¹,

Azodi²,

Clark³

et al. 2014

Int J Gynecol Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A few investigations have shown that, for instance, robotic radical hysterectomies appear to be equivalent to surgery by the abdominal approach in terms of long-term survival. In fact, the robotic procedure is possibly superior to the conventional procedure in terms of the number of resected lymph nodes (7,24). Despite the success of screening programs and HPV vaccination, cervical carcinoma continues to be a global problem.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic surgery in gynecology

Alkatout

Mettler

Maass

et al. 2016

J Turkish German Gynecol Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Review 224 Robotic surgery in gynecologyRobotic surgery is a dynamic development for minimally invasive procedures. The specialty of gynecology consistently offers new opportunities for innovative surgical techniques and the advancement of existing therapy approaches (Figure 1). Ever since the American FDA granted approval of the Da Vinci operation robot for gynecological operations in 2005, about three million robotic operations have been performed worldwide. 3500 Da Vinci systems are currently in use: 586 of these in Europe and 77 in Germany (4 th quarter of 2015). According to the figures of Intuitive Surgical, about 600,000 interventions were performed on a worldwide basis in the year 2014, of which 50% were performed in gynecology, approximately 30% in urology, and about 20% in general and chest surgeries. In 2011, the proportion of robotic hysterectomies performed for benign indications in the USA was as high as 27% (1). Currently, we have experience in robotic surgery for the majority of gynecological operations and fields of application. The known advantages of minimally invasive surgery, such as less blood loss, shorter durations of hospital stay, and lower patient morbidity compared to open procedures, have been observed here as well. Better exposure of the operating field by 3D technology and the extension of surgical instruments to 7 degrees of freedom permit the use of minimally invasive surgery, even for complex indications. Robot-assisted manipulation of the instruments permits tremor-free handling and reduces work fatigue for the surgeon, which is very advantageous for the surgeon as well as the patient in long and complex interventions. The possibility of working simultaneously on two parallel consoles shortens the learning curve, reduces complication rates, and facilitates the training of surgeons (2). The advancement of robotic surgery in terms of the Da Vinci Xi permits the variable use of optics in all four trocars (paraaortic lymphadenectomy, omentectomy, or interdisciplinary surgery in the upper abdomen can be performed without re-docking) and ensures markedly greater flexibility due to the optimized geometry of the so-called patient cart. Robotic surgery has been criticized for the fact that it requires the use of larger trocars compared to conventional laparoscopy, and is therefore associated with more numerous and larger cosmetic scars; this is avoided by the smaller trocars now used in robotic surgery (3). The development of the single-site systems signifies further new options for the gynecological surgeon (Figure 2). For instance, freedom of movement is now maximized by the introduction of one or more additional working trocars (4, 5). The low level of postoperative pain appears to be another advantage. It is accompanied by a lesser need for analgesics and even shorter hospital stays compared to traditional laparoscopic surgery. One explanation could be the fact that the abdominal wall need not be used as a counter bearing. The absence of irritation and the advantage of tissue protec...

show abstract

Analysis of disease recurrence and survival for women with uterine malignancies undergoing robotic surgery

Cited by 41 publications

References 33 publications

Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in the management of endometrial cancer

Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in the management of endometrial cancer

Impact of Body Mass Index on Surgical Outcomes and Analysis of Disease Recurrence for Patients With Endometrial Cancer Undergoing Robotic-Assisted Staging

Robotic surgery in gynecology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About