Enhanced recovery after single-site robotic staging surgery of endometrial cancer

This retrospective study aimed to examine the safety and clinical outcomes of enhanced recovery after single-site robotic staging surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. Data were collected from Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital’s electronic medical records between July 2017 and August 2021. All the included endometrial cancer patients underwent single-site robotic staging surgery followed by enhanced recovery after surgery based on the guidelines for enhanced recovery after surgery society recommendations. The factors assessed were survival outcomes, complications and postoperative adjuvant therapy. Of the 60 patients included in this study, four (6.7%) experienced grade III postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery. Additionally, there were five cases (8.3%) that required a visit to the emergency room and two cases (3.3%) that necessitated readmission. Seventeen patients (28.3%) received postoperative adjuvant therapy, with treatment initiated 8 weeks after staging surgery in 14 patients (23.3%) and over 8 weeks in three patients (5.0%). The follow-up duration averaged 32.0 months (range, 3 to 60 months). No mortality was recorded during the follow-up period after staging surgery. The recurrence rate was 5.0% (n = 3), and the 3-year progression-free survival rate for the endometrioid type was 94.3%. These findings suggest that enhanced recovery after single-site robotic staging surgery is feasible for patients with endometrial cancer, yielding similar clinical outcomes and manageable complications without extending the time to adjuvant therapy initiation. However, further studies are necessary to investigate the long-term survival outcomes associated with enhanced recovery after surgery application.

Endometrial cancer; Enhanced recovery; Adjuvant therapy; Robotic; Single-site

[1] Crosbie EJ, Kitson SJ, McAlpine JN, Mukhopadhyay A, Powell ME, Singh N. Endometrial cancer. The Lancet. 2022; 399: 1412–1428.

[2] Lu KH, Broaddus RR. Endometrial cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2020; 383: 2053–2064.

[3] Koskas M, Amant F, Mirza MR, Creutzberg CL. Cancer of the corpus uteri: 2021 update. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2021; 155: 45–60.

[4] Concin N, Matias-Guiu X, Vergote I, Cibula D, Mirza MR, Marnitz S, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2021; 154: 327–353.

[5] Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic oncology group LAP2 study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2012; 30: 695–700.

[6] 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.

[7] National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Uterine neoplasms (Version 2.2023). 2023. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/uterine.pdf (Accessed: 28 April 2023).

[8] Fu H, Zhang J, Zhao S, He N. Survival outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopy versus conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecologic Oncology. 2023; 174: 55–67.

[9] Kakkos A, Ver Eecke C, Ongaro S, Traen K, Peeters F, Van Trappen P, et al. Robot-assisted surgery for women with endometrial cancer: Surgical and oncologic outcomes within a Belgium gynaecological oncology group cohort. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2021; 47: 1117–1123.

[10] Eoh K, Nam E, Kim S, Shin M, Kim SJ, Kim J, et al. Nationwide comparison of surgical and oncologic outcomes in endometrial cancer patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery: a population-based cohort study. Cancer Research and Treatment. 2021; 53: 549–557.

[11] Ng JS, Leitao MM, Lim PC, Kim T, Kim SW. Asian society for gynecologic robotic surgery consensus guidelines on robotic surgery in gynecological cancer. Gynecologic Robotic Surgery. 2020; 1: 2–13.

[12] Chambers LM, Carr C, Freeman L, Jernigan AM, Michener CM. Does surgical platform impact recurrence and survival? A study of utilization of multiport, single-port, and robotic-assisted laparoscopy in endometrial cancer surgery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019; 221: 243.e1–243.e11.

[13] Corrado G, Mereu L, Bogliolo S, Cela V, Gardella B, Sperduti I, et al. Comparison between single‐site and multiport robot-assisted hysterectomy in obese patients with endometrial cancer: an Italian multi-institutional study. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2020; 16: e2066.

[14] Engelman RM, Rousou JA, Flack JE, Deaton DW, Humphrey CB, Ellison LH, et al. Fast-track recovery of the coronary bypass patient. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 1994; 58: 1742–1746.

[15] Bardram L, Funch-Jensen P, Jensen P, Crawford ME, Kehlet H. Recovery after laparoscopic colonic surgery with epidural analgesia, and early oral nutrition and mobilisation. The Lancet. 1995; 345: 763–764.

[16] Bisch SP, Nelson G. Outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in gynecologic oncology: a review. Current Oncology. 2022; 29: 631–640.

[17] ACOG Committee Opinion No. 750: perioperative pathways: enhanced recovery after surgery. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2018; 132: e120–e130.

[18] Kim SR, Laframboise S, Nelson G, McCluskey SA, Avery L, Kujbid N, et al. Enhanced recovery after minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery to improve same day discharge: a quality improvement project. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2022; 32: 457–465.

[19] Chau JPC, Liu X, Lo SHS, Chien WT, Hui SK, Choi KC, et al. Perioperative enhanced recovery programmes for women with gynaecological cancers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2022; 3: CD008239.

[20] Stone R, Carey E, Fader AN, Fitzgerald J, Hammons L, Nensi A, et al. Enhanced recovery and surgical optimization protocol for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery: an AAGL white paper. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021; 28: 179–203.

[21] Nelson G, Bakkum-Gamez J, Kalogera E, Glaser G, Altman A, Meyer LA, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations—2019 update. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2019; 29: 651–668.

[22] Nelson G, Altman AD, Nick A, Meyer LA, Ramirez PT, Achtari C, et al. Guidelines for pre- and intra-operative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations—part I. Gynecologic Oncology. 2016; 140: 313–322.

[23] Nelson G, Altman AD, Nick A, Meyer LA, Ramirez PT, Achtari C, et al. Guidelines for postoperative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations—part II. Gynecologic Oncology. 2016; 140: 323–332.

[24] Kwak YH, Lee H, Seon K, Lee YJ, Lee YJ, Kim SW. Da vinci sp single-port robotic surgery in gynecologic tumors: single surgeon’s initial experience with 100 cases. Yonsei Medical Journal. 2022; 63: 179–186.

[25] Wilson CA, Aminsharifi A, Sawczyn G, Garisto JD, Yau R, Eltemamy M, et al. Outpatient extraperitoneal single-port robotic radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2020; 144: 142–146.

[26] Zhu S, Khalil R, Altairy O, Burmeister C, Dimitrova I, Elshaikh M. Increased risk of recurrence in early-stage endometrial carcinoma after delays in adjuvant radiation treatment. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2021; 31: 73–77.

[27] Tankou JI, Foley O, Falzone M, Kalyanaraman R, Elias KM. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols improve time to return to intended oncology treatment following interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced gynecologic cancers. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2021; 31: 1145–1153.

[28] Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals of Surgery. 2004; 240: 205–213.

[29] Tymon-Rosario JR, Miller DT, Novetsky AP, Goldberg GL, Nevadunsky NS, Makhija SK, et al. Risk factors associated with delayed discharge following robotic assisted surgery for gynecologic malignancy. Gynecologic Oncology. 2020; 157: 723–728.

[30] Sanabria D, Rodriguez J, Pecci P, Ardila E, Pareja R. Same-day discharge in minimally invasive surgery performed by gynecologic oncologists: a review of patient selection. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2020; 27: 816–825.

[31] Corrado G, Mereu L, Bogliolo S, Cela V, Freschi L, Carlin R, et al. Robotic single site staging in endometrial cancer: a multi-institution study. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2016; 42: 1506–1511.

[32] Moulton L, Jernigan AM, Carr C, Freeman L, Escobar PF, Michener CM. Single-port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology: seven years of experience at a single institution. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 217: 610.e1–610.e8.

[33] Freeman AH, Barrie A, Lyon L, Littell RD, Garcia C, Conell C, et al. Venous thromboembolism following minimally invasive surgery among women with endometrial cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2016; 142: 267–272.

[34] Jorgensen EM, Hur H. Venous thromboembolism in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery: a systematic review. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2019; 26: 186–196.

[35] Kurra V, Krajewski KM, Jagannathan J, Giardino A, Berlin S, Ramaiya N. Typical and atypical metastatic sites of recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Cancer Imaging. 2013; 13: 113–122.