Article Data

  • Views 831
  • Dowloads 156

Original Research

Open Access

Comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in women over 65 years old with gynecological malignancies

  • Myriam Gracia1,*,
  • Miguel Ángel Herraiz2
  • Javier García-Santos2
  • Mar Ramírez2
  • Mónica Bellón2
  • Pluvio Coronado2

1Gynecology Oncology Department, La Paz University Hospital, 28046 Madrid, Spain

2Gynecology Oncology Department, Institute of Women’s Health José Botella Llusiá, Clinico San Carlos Hospital, 28040 Madrid, Spain

DOI: 10.22514/ejgo.2024.013 Vol.45,Issue 1,February 2024 pp.83-88

Submitted: 10 July 2023 Accepted: 14 August 2023

Published: 15 February 2024

*Corresponding Author(s): Myriam Gracia E-mail: Myriam.gracia@salud.madrid.org

Abstract

We aim to compare perioperative outcomes and complications between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for gynecologic oncology indications in patients over 65 years old. A prospective comparative study performed at a University Hospital, in patients over 65 operated by robotic (RS) or laparoscopic surgery (LS). All women were diagnosed with gynecological malignancies (cervical, endometrial or ovarian cancer). Data regarding the demographic preoperative characteristic of the patients, perioperative outcomes and surgical complications were analyzed. A total of 209 women underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gynecologic cancer: 141 (67.5%) by RS and 68 (32.5%) by LS. The median age was 73.4 years (range: 69–77 years) in RS group and 72.8 years (range: 67–78) in the LS group (p = 0.506). Hospital stays and blood loos were similar in both groups. Operating time was shorter in the RS group, having a median value of 125 min (range: 95–180 min) compared to 145 min (range: 94–220 min) in the LS group (p = 0.277). RS and LS were also found to be comparable in terms of peri- and postoperative complications. In conclusion, RS has comparable perioperative outcomes and complications rates to LS in women over 65.


Keywords

Elderly; Gynecological cancer; Laparoscopic surgery; Minimally invasive surgery; Robotic surgery


Cite and Share

Myriam Gracia,Miguel Ángel Herraiz,Javier García-Santos,Mar Ramírez,Mónica Bellón,Pluvio Coronado. Comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in women over 65 years old with gynecological malignancies. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2024. 45(1);83-88.

References

[1] Lavoue V, Zeng X, Lau S, Press JZ, Abitbol J, Gotlieb R, et al. Impact of robotics on the outcome of elderly patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2014; 133: 556–562.

[2] van Walree IC, Bretveld R, van Huis-Tanja LH, Louwers JA, Emmelot-Vonk MH, Hamaker ME. Reasons for guideline non-adherence in older and younger women with advanced stage ovarian cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2020; 157: 593–598.

[3] Hotton J, Koual M, Gosset M, Rossi L, Delomenie M, Ngo C, et al. Outcomes of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer in elderly women. Surgical Oncology. 2020; 33: 24–29.

[4] Lyons YA, Stephan J, Gonzalez Bosquet J, Goodheart MJ. Gynecologic oncology: challenges of minimally invasive surgery in a field of maximal complexities. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2020; 63: 30–39.

[5] Tanaka T, Yamashita S, Kuroboshi H, Kamibayashi J, Sugiura A, Yoriki K, et al. Oncologic outcomes in elderly patients who underwent hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: a multi-institutional survey in Kinki District, Japan. International Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2022; 27: 1084–1092.

[6] Gallotta V, Conte C, D’Indinosante M, Federico A, Biscione A, Vizzielli G, et al. Robotic surgery in elderly and very elderly gynecologic cancer patients. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2018; 25: 872–877.

[7] Cibula D, Raspollini MR, Planchamp F, Centeno C, Chargari C, Felix A, et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer—update 2023. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2023; 33: 649–666.

[8] 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.

[9] Sung VW, Weitzen S, Sokol ER, Rardin CR, Myers DL. Effect of patient age on increasing morbidity and mortality following urogynecologic surgery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006; 194: 1411–1417.

[10] Krause AK, Muntz HG, McGonigle KF. Robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery and perioperative morbidity in elderly women. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2016; 23: 949–953.

[11] Pyrzak A, Saiz A, Polan RM, Barber EL. Risk factors for potentially avoidable readmissions following gynecologic oncology surgery. Gynecologic Oncology. 2020; 159: 195–200.

[12] 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.

[13] Doo DW, Guntupalli SR, Corr BR, Sheeder J, Davidson SA, Behbakht K, et al. Comparative surgical outcomes for endometrial cancer patients 65 years old or older staged with robotics or laparotomy. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2015; 22: 3687–3694.

[14] Shoraka M, Wang S, Carbajal-Mamani SL, Han H, Amaro B, Cardenas-Goicoechea J. Oncologic outcomes in older women with endometrial carcinoma (≥70 years). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2022; 42: 2127–2133.

[15] Dos Reis R, Andrade CEMC, Frumovitz M, Munsell M, Ramirez PT. Radical hysterectomy and age: outcomes comparison based on a minimally invasive vs an open approach. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2018; 25: 1224–1230.

[16] Lindfors A, Åkesson Å, Staf C, Sjöli P, Sundfeldt K, Dahm-Kähler P. Robotic vs open surgery for endometrial cancer in elderly patients: surgical outcome, survival, and cost analysis. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2018; 28: 692–699.

[17] Zakhari A, Czuzoj-Shulman N, Spence AR, Gotlieb WH, Abenhaim HA. Hysterectomy for uterine cancer in the elderly: a comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted techniques. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2016; 26: 1222–1227.

[18] Bishop EA, Java JJ, Moore KN, Spirtos NM, Pearl ML, Zivanovic O, et al. Surgical outcomes among elderly women with endometrial cancer treated by laparoscopic hysterectomy: an NRG/gynecologic oncology group study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018; 218: 109.e1–109.e11.

[19] Zhou L, Guo F, Li D, Qi J, Chan L, Yuan Y. Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for elderly patients with clinical stage I endometrial cancer. Journal of B.U.ON. 2020; 25: 764–771.

[20] Moore MS, Vo EH, Bhattarai B, Farley JH, Monk BJ, Willmott LJ, et al. Robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery in an older population: a comparison study. Journal of Geriatric Oncology. 2023; 14: 101533.

[21] Mothes AR, Kather A, Cepraga I, Esber A, Kwetkat A, Runnebaum IB. Robotic-assisted gynecological surgery in older patients—a comparative cohort study of perioperative outcomes. Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde. 2023; 83: 437–445. (In German)


Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top