Study Objective To evaluate the feasibility, surgical outcome, and oncologic results observed after robotic staging compared with conventional laparoscopic staging for patients with early-stage ovarian cancer patients. Design A retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. Patients Ninety-six patients underwent minimally invasive staging for presumed stage I ovarian cancer; 32 underwent the robotic approach (cases), and 64 underwent the laparoscopic approach (controls). Measurements and Main Results There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 approaches with regard to final Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique stage, histology, and grade of tumors. In the whole series, 15 patients (15.6%) were upstaged, with no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. The median number of pelvic lymph nodes removed was 14 (range, 3–42) and 11 (range, 2–29) in the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p = .235), respectively. The median number of aortic lymph nodes removed was 11 (range, 3–26) and 12 (range, 1–39) in the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p = .263), respectively. The operative time was significantly shorter in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group (p = .043), whereas the amount of estimated blood loss was similar (p = .691). No difference was found in terms of early and postoperative complications. Overall, 72 patients were considered as requiring adjuvant treatment. Two patients experienced peritoneal recurrence. Conclusion The present study suggests that there is no relevant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches in staging early-stage ovarian cancer. Further prospective trials are needed to confirm our results.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Staging for Early Ovarian Cancer: A Case-Matched Control Study

Vizzielli G.;
2017-01-01

Abstract

Study Objective To evaluate the feasibility, surgical outcome, and oncologic results observed after robotic staging compared with conventional laparoscopic staging for patients with early-stage ovarian cancer patients. Design A retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. Patients Ninety-six patients underwent minimally invasive staging for presumed stage I ovarian cancer; 32 underwent the robotic approach (cases), and 64 underwent the laparoscopic approach (controls). Measurements and Main Results There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 approaches with regard to final Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique stage, histology, and grade of tumors. In the whole series, 15 patients (15.6%) were upstaged, with no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. The median number of pelvic lymph nodes removed was 14 (range, 3–42) and 11 (range, 2–29) in the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p = .235), respectively. The median number of aortic lymph nodes removed was 11 (range, 3–26) and 12 (range, 1–39) in the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p = .263), respectively. The operative time was significantly shorter in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group (p = .043), whereas the amount of estimated blood loss was similar (p = .691). No difference was found in terms of early and postoperative complications. Overall, 72 patients were considered as requiring adjuvant treatment. Two patients experienced peritoneal recurrence. Conclusion The present study suggests that there is no relevant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches in staging early-stage ovarian cancer. Further prospective trials are needed to confirm our results.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11390/1242524
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 37
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 37
social impact