Robot-assisted surgery for early uterine corpus cancer: assessing the learning curve

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is performed for various human cancers, among which robot-assisted surgery is widely used in the United States, Europe, and other countries. Presently, the total number of robot-assisted surgeries in gynecology exceeds that in urology and any other clinical department. Our group began using robot-assisted surgery for early-stage uterine corpus cancer as from November 2017 and has already performed 40 robot-assisted operations. For this study, we examined the cases of 35 patients, excluding 3 in whom lymphadenectomy was not performed and 2 who underwent additional vaginal wall plasty. Compared with the first 20 cases, the latter 15 had reduced bleeding and shorter operation times. No serious complications were observed in the whole cohort, but infections, including urinary tract infections and peritonitis, were common among the first 20 patients. Although robot-assisted surgery is considered more advantageous for obese patients than laparoscopic and open surgery, we found no significant differences in bleeding, surgical time, or the number of resected lymph nodes between obese patients (Body Mass Index (BMI) ≥30) and other patients in this present study. Robot-assisted surgery is expected to be more widely used, and further technical improvements are needed.

Robot-assisted surgery; Uterine corpus cancer; Laparoscopic surgery; Learning curve

[1] Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic oncology group study LAP2. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009; 27: 5331–5336.

[2] Gokmen Karasu AF, Kıran G, Şanlıkan F. Intraoperative complications and conversion to laparotomy in gynecologic robotic surgery. Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2022; 35: 912–915.

[3] Li Y, Kong Q, Wei H, Wang Y. Comparison of the complications between minimally invasive surgery and open surgical treatments for early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021; 16: e0253143.

[4] Clair KH, Tewari KS. Robotic surgery for gynecological cancers; indications, techniques, and controversies. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2020; 46: 828–843.

[5] Sofer A, Magnezi R, Eitan R, Raban O, Tal O, Smorgic N, et al. Robotic vs. open surgery in obese women with low-grade endometrial cancer: comparison of costs and quality of life measures. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research. 2020; 9: 60.

[6] Turner TB, Kim KH. Mapping the Robotic hysterectomy learning curve and re-establishing surgical training metrics. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2021; 32: e58.

[7] Akazawa M, Hashimoto K, Lee SL, Liu WM. Learning curve of robot-assisted hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for early-stage endometrial cancer: analysis of 81 cases. Anticancer Research. 2021; 41: 4173–4178.

[8] Flynn J, Larach JT, Kong JCH, Waters PS, Warrier SK, Heriot A. The learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Colorectal Disease. 2021; 23: 2806–2820.

[9] Goh BKP, Low T, Kam J, Lee S, Chan CY. Initial experience with laparoscopic and robotic surgery for the treatment of periampullary tumours: single institution experience with the first 30 consecutive cases. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2019; 89: E137–E141.

[10] Hwang JH, Yoo HJ, Joo J, Kim S, Lim MC, Song YJ, et al. Learning curve analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection in early cervical cancer. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2012; 163: 219–223.

[11] Chong GO, Park NY, Hong DG, Cho YL, Park IS, Lee YS. Learning curve of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the early and locally advanced cervical cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2009; 19: 1459–1464.

[12] Gungorduk K, Kahramanoglu O, Ozdemir IA, Kahramanoglu I. Robotic platforms for endometrial cancer treatment: review of the literature. Minerva Medica. 2021; 112: 47–54.

[13] Peacock O, Limvorapitak T, Hu CY, Bednarski BK, Tillman MM, Kaur H, et al. Robotic rectal cancer surgery: comparative study of the impact of obesity on early outcomes. British Journal of Surgery. 2020; 107: 1552–1557.

[14] Gracia M, García-Santos J, Ramirez M, Bellón M, Herraiz MA, Coronado PJ. Value of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer by body mass index. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2020; 150: 398–405.

[15] Bourgin C, Lambaudie E, Houvenaeghel G, Foucher F, Levêque J, Lavoué V. Impact of age on surgical staging and approaches (laparotomy, laparoscopy and robotic surgery) in endometrial cancer management. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2017; 43: 703–709.

[16] Giannini A, Di Donato V, Schiavi MC, May J, Panici PB, Congiu MA. Predictors of postoperative overall and severe complications after surgical treatment for endometrial cancer: the role of the fragility index. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2020; 148: 174–180.