Surgical outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy using three robotic arms versus conventional multiport laparoscopy in patients with cervical cancer

Ga Won Yim, Sang Wun Kim, Eun Ji Nam, Sunghoon Kim, Hee Jung Kim, Young Tae Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)


Purpose: To compare surgical outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) using 3 robotic arms with those of conventional laparoscopy in patients with early cervical cancer. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study included 102 patients with stage 1A1-IIA2 cervical carcinoma, of whom 60 underwent robotic and 42 underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) with pelvic lymph node dissection performed between December 2009 and May 2013. Perioperative outcomes were compared between two surgical groups. Results: Robotic approach consisted of 3 robotic arms including the camera arm and 1 conventional assistant port. Laparoscopic approach consisted of four trocar insertions with conventional instruments. There were no conversions to laparotomy. Mean age, body mass index, tumor size, cell type, and clinical stage were not significantly different between two cohorts. RRH showed favorable outcomes over LRH in terms of estimated blood loss (100 mL vs. 145 mL, p=0.037), early postoperative complication rates (16.7% vs. 30.9%, p=0.028), and postoperative complications necessitating intervention by Clavien-Dindo classification. Total operative time (200.5±61.1 minutes vs. 215.6±83.1 minutes, p=0.319), mean number of lymph node yield (23.3±9.3 vs. 21.7±9.8, p=0.248), and median length of postoperative hospital stay (11 days vs. 10 days, p=0.129) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic group, respectively. The median follow-up time was 44 months with 2 recurrences in the robotic and 3 in the laparoscopic cohort. Conclusion: Surgical outcomes of RRH and pelvic lymphadenectomy were comparable to that of laparoscopic approach, with significantly less blood loss and early postoperative complications.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1222-1230
Number of pages9
JournalYonsei medical journal
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 2014 Sep


All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this