Study Objective: To investigate and compare surgical outcomes of the 3 versus 4 robotic arm approaches for robotic surgery in patients with cervical cancer. Design: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: An academic tertiary hospital. Patients: A total of 142 patients with stage 1A1 to IIB cervical carcinoma who underwent robotic surgery were included for analysis. The subjects were divided according to the surgical approach (i.e., the number of robotic arms), and the 2 groups were compared in terms of intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes. Interventions: Robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) with lymphadenectomy using 3 robotic arms (n = 101) versus 4 robotic arms (n = 41). Measurements and Main Results: Perioperative surgical outcomes. The 3-arm robotic approach consisted of a camera arm, 2 robotic arms, and 1 conventional assistant port. An additional robotic arm was placed on the right side of the patient's abdomen for the 4-arm robotic approach. The mean age, body mass index, cell type, Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique stage, and type of surgery were not significantly different between the 2 cohorts. The 3-arm approach showed favorable outcomes over the 4-arm approach in terms of postoperative pain at 6 and 24 hours (3.8 ± 1.8 vs 4.5 ± 1.7 and 2.8 ± 1.7 vs 3.4 ± 1.6, respectively; p =.033 and.049) and postoperative hemoglobin difference (1.8 ± 0.9 vs 2.6 ± 1.3 and 1.9 ± 1.1 vs 2.4 ± 0.9 on days 1 and 3, respectively; p =.002 and.004). The median length of postoperative hospital stay, total operative time, docking time, lymph node yield, and intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were comparable between the 2 cohorts. Conclusion: Surgical outcomes and complications rates of RRH for cervical cancer using the 4-arm approach were comparable with that of the 3-arm approach with decreased early postoperative pain in the 3-arm group. Cost-benefit analysis and the impact on surgical training are needed in the future.
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Obstetrics and Gynaecology