Article Data

  • Views 781
  • Dowloads 158

Rapid Communication

Open Access Special Issue

Single-site robotic-assisted hysterectomy and sentinel lymph node mapping for low-risk endometrial cancer: surgical technique and preliminary outcomes

  • Felix Chan1,*,
  • Cherynne Yuin Mun Johansson2

1Westmead Private Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, 3 Technology Place, Macquarie University, NSW, 2109 New South Wales, Australia

2Minimally Invasive Gynaecological Surgery Unit, Liverpool Hospital, Elizabeth Street, Liverpool, NSW, 2170 New South Wales, Australia

DOI: 10.31083/j.ejgo4205145 Vol.42,Issue 5,October 2021 pp.966-972

Submitted: 04 April 2021 Accepted: 11 June 2021

Published: 15 October 2021

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology)

*Corresponding Author(s): Felix Chan E-mail: felix.chan@mq.edu.au

Abstract

The staging of endometrial cancer has changed from clinical to surgical over the years. Lymph node disease is recognised as an important prognostic factor as well as an aid to tailoring adjuvant therapy. The development of sentinel lymph node mapping algorithms shows promise in diagnostic accuracy and reducing the morbidity as-sociated with comprehensive lymphadenectomy. In select patients, it is feasible to perform sentinel lymph node mapping using minimally invasive surgical techniques. We present a series of single-site robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and sentinel lymph node mapping for low-risk endometrial cancer focusing on the surgical technique required and perioperative outcomes.


Keywords

Endometrial cancer; Single-site hysterectomy; Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery; Robotic single-site surgery; Sentinel node mapping


Cite and Share

Felix Chan,Cherynne Yuin Mun Johansson. Single-site robotic-assisted hysterectomy and sentinel lymph node mapping for low-risk endometrial cancer: surgical technique and preliminary outcomes. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2021. 42(5);966-972.

References

[1] Shepherd JH. Revised FIGO staging for gynaecological cancer. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1989; 96: 889–892.

[2] Lewin SN. Revised FIGO staging system for endometrial cancer. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2011; 54: 215–218.

[3] Panici PB, Basile S, Maneschi F, Lissoni AA, Signorelli M, Scam-bia G, et al. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: randomized clinical trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2008; 100: 1707–1716.

[4] Kitchener H, Swart AMC, Qian Q, Amos C, Parmar MKB. Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study. Lancet. 2009; 373: 125–136.

[5] Frost JA, Webster KE, Bryant A, Morrison J. Lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017; 10: CD007585.

[6] Sala P, Morotti M, Menada MV, Cannavino E, Maffeo I, Abete L, et al. Intraoperative Frozen Section Risk Assessment Accurately Tailors the Surgical Staging in Patients Affected by Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: the Application of 2 Different Risk Algorithms. International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer. 2014; 24: 1021–1026.

[7] Mariani A, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, Gostout BS, Jones MB, Wilson TO, et al. Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Gynecologic Oncology. 2008; 109: 11–18.

[8] Bodurtha Smith AJ, Fader AN, Tanner EJ. Sentinel lymph node assessment in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 216: 459–476.e10.

[9] Ballester M, Dubernard G, Lécuru F, Heitz D, Mathevet P, Marret H, et al. Detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of sentinel-node biopsy in early stage endometrial cancer: a prospective multicenter study (SENTI-ENDO). Lancet Oncology. 2011; 12: 469–476.

[10] How J, Lau S, Press J, Ferenczy A, Pelmus M, Stern J, et al. Accuracy of sentinel lymph node detection following intraoperative cervical injection for endometrial cancer: a prospective study. Gynecologic Oncology. 2012; 127: 332–337.

[11] Jewell EL, Huang JJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Gardner GJ, Brown CL, Sonoda Y, et al. Detection of sentinel lymph nodes in minimally invasive surgery using indocyanine green and near-infrared fluo-rescence imaging for uterine and cervical malignancies. Gynecologic Oncology. 2014; 133: 274–277.

[12] Sinno AK, Fader AN, Roche KL, Giuntoli RL, Tanner EJ. A com-parison of colorimetric versus fluorometric sentinel lymph node mapping during robotic surgery for endometrial cancer. Gynecologic Oncology. 2014; 134: 281–286.

[13] Barlin JN, Khoury-Collado F, Kim CH, Leitao MM, Chi DS, Sonoda Y, et al. The importance of applying a sentinel lymph node mapping algorithm in endometrial cancer staging: beyond removal of blue nodes. Gynecologic Oncology. 2012; 125: 531–535.

[14] Rossi EC, Kowalski LD, Scalici J, Cantrell L, Schuler K, Hanna RK, et al. A comparison of sentinel lymph node biopsy to lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer staging (FIRES trial): a multicentre, prospective, cohort study. Lancet Oncology. 2017; 18: 384–392.

[15] Zahl Eriksson AG, Ducie J, Ali N, McGree ME, Weaver AL, Bogani G, et al. Comparison of a sentinel lymph node and a selective lymphadenopathy algorithm in patients with endometrioid adenocarcinoma and limited myometrial invasion. Gynecologic Oncology. 2016; 140: 394–399.

[16] Seamon LG, Fowler JM, Cohn DE. Lymphadenectomy for en-dometrial cancer: the controversy. Gynecologic Oncology. 2010; 117: 6–8.

[17] Escobar PF, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Frasure HE, Fader AN, Schmeler KM, et al. Comparison of Single-Port Laparoscopy, Standard Laparoscopy, and Robotic Surgery in Patients with Endometrial Cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2012; 19: 1583–1588.

[18] Boggess JF, Gegrih PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, et al. A comparison study of three surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2008; 199: 360–369.

[19] Jung YW, Kim YT, Lee DW, Hwang YI, Nam EJ, Kim JH, et al. The feasibility of scarless single-port transumbilical total laparoscopic hysterectomy: initial clinical experience. Surgical Endoscopy. 2010; 24: 1686–1692.

[20] Yim GW, Jung YW, Paek J, Lee SH, Kwon HY, Nam EJ, et al. Transumbilical single port access versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy: surgical outcome. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2010; 203: 26.e1–e6.

[21] Kim Y, Park B, Ro D, Kim T. Single-port laparoscopic myomectomy using a new single-port transumbilical morcellation system: initial clinical study. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2010; 17: 587–592.

[22] Sendag F, Akdemir A, Zeybek B, Ozdemir A, Gunusen I, Oztekin MK. Single-site robotic total hysterectomy: standardization of technique and surgical outcomes. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2014; 21: 689–694.

[23] Nam EJ, Kim SW, Lee M, Yim GW, Paek JH, Lee SH, et al. Robotic single-port transumbilical total hysterectomy: a pilot study. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology. 2011; 22: 120–126.

[24] Escobar PF, Fader AN, Paraiso MF, Kaouk JH, Falcone T. Robotic assisted laparoscopic single site surgery in gynaecology: initial report and technique. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2009; 16: 589–591.

[25] Sendağ F, Akdemir A, Oztekin MK. Robotic single-incision transumbilical total hysterectomy using a single-site robotic platform: initial report and technique. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2014; 21: 147–151.

[26] Vizza E, Corrado G, Mancini E, Baiocco E, Patrizi L, Fabrizi L, et al. Robotic single-site hysterectomy in low risk endometrial cancer: a pilot study. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2013; 20: 2759–2764.

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

[28] Escobar PF, Knight J, Rao S, Weinberg L. Da Vinci® single-site platform: anthropometrical, docking and suturing considerations for hysterectomy in the cadaver model. International Journal of Medical Robotics. 2012; 8: 191–195.

[29] Moukarzel LA, Sinno AK, Fader AN, Tanner EJ. Comparing single-site and multiport robotic hysterectomy wit sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer: surgical outcomes and cost analysis. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2017; 24: 977–983.

[30] 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.

[31] Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Bean S, Bradley K, Campos SM, Cho KR, et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Uterine Neoplasms, Version 1.2018. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2018; 16: 2.

[32] Kang S, Yoo HJ, Hwang JH, Lim M, Seo S, Park S. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in endometrial cancer: meta-analysis of 26 studies. Gynecologic Oncology. 2011; 123: 522–527.

[33] Abu-Rustum NR. Sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer: modern approach to surgical staging. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2014;12: 288–297.

[34] Kitchener HC. Sentinel-node biopsy in endometrial cancer: a win-win scenario? Lancet Oncology. 2011; 12: 413–414.

[35] Holloway RW, Abu-Rustum NR, Backes FJ, Boggess JF, Gotlieb WH, Jeffrey Lowery W, et al. Sentinel lymph node mapping and staging in endometrial cancer: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology literature review with consensus recommendations. Gynecologic Oncology. 2017; 146: 405–415.


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