Authors
Politova A.K., Vyazmina K.Yu., Titova V.V., Vershinina Yu.A., Aleksandrova A.D.
Pirogov National Medical and Surgical Center, Moscow
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate the outcomes of robot-assisted (DaVinci) and laparoscopic surgeries in patients with malignant neoplasms of the uterine body and cervix.
Material and methods. Medical records of 177 patients who underwent robotic (DaVinci) or laparoscopic surgery for uterine body and cervical cancer between 2009 and 2024 at the N.I. Pirogov National Medical and Surgical Center were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative outcomes of the two techniques were compared. The groups were comparable in baseline characteristics.
Results. Robot-assisted surgeries demonstrated significantly shorter operative time (p = 0,015) and reduced blood loss (p < 0,0001) compared to laparoscopic procedures. The number of lymph nodes removed was comparable. Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed significantly more frequently in the robotic group (p = 0,0043). Operative time was longer in the robotic group (260 min against 190 min; p = 0,18), attributable to the performance of para-aortic lymphadenectomy (9,7% against 0%). Complications were rare across all groups.
Conclusion. Both techniques demonstrate comparable safety and efficacy. However, the choice of approach should consider technological availability, disease stage, and the surgical team’s expertise. Future development of this field involves integrating fluorescent navigation and analyzing long-term oncological outcomes. These results highlight the necessity of personalized approaches in surgical management of gynecological malignancies.
Keywords: robot-assisted operations, laparoscopy, endometrial cancer, cervical cancer. oncogynecology, minimally invasive surgery.
References
1. Slukhanchuk E.V., Tyan A.G. Opportunities for robotic-assisted surgery in treatment of uterine cancer. Current view on the problem. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. 2020; 14(6): 666-674. (InRuss.) doi: 10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn.rep.2020.180.
2. Nie JC, Yan AQ, Liu XS. Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017; 27(9): 1990-1999.
3. Shevchuk AS, Novikova EG. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cancer of the cervix uteri. P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology. 2015; 4(3): 10-15. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17116/onkolog20154310-15.
4. Potapov PA, Timoshenko DS, Armashov VP, et al. Robotic-assisted surgery: yesterday, today, tomorrow. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2022; 11: 29-35. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17116/ hirurgia202211129.
5. Alimov VA, Grekov DN, Danilov AM, et al. Robot-assisted surgeries in the treatment of malignant uterine tumors. P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology. 2024; 13(1): 5-10. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17116/onkolog2024130115.
6. Popov AA, Atroshenko KV, Slobodyanuyk BA, et al. Robotic surgery in gynecology. Kuban Scientific Medical Bulletin. 2016; 1: 116-120. (In Russ.)
7. Khat’kov IE, Ponomareva IuN, Loginova EA, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopy in the treatment of gynecological oncological diseases. Endoscopic Surgery. 2020; 26(2): 50-57. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17116/endoskop20202602150.
8. Rybakin AV, Manturova NE, Zazybo NA, et al. Prospects for the use of robotic-assisted technologies in aesthetic plastic surgery. Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2023; 4-2: 24-34. (In Russ.,In Engl.) doi: 10.17116/plast.hirurgia202304224.
9. Bebia V, Gil-Moreno A, Hernández A, et al. Robot-assisted extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy is associated with fewer surgical complications: a post hoc analysis of the STELLA-2 randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021; 28(12): 2004-2012.
10. Yusuf C, Duygu KC, Isik S, et al. Comparison of Laparoscopy and Laparotomy in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: Early Experiences from a Developing Country. Journal of Oncology. 2020; 4: 1-5.
11. Galaal K, Bryant A, Fisher AD, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12(9): CD006655.
12. Zhou Z, Ge J, Ye K, et al. Comparison of Robotic-Assisted vs. Conventional Laparoscopy for Para-aortic Lymphadenectomy in Gynecological Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Surg. 2023; 9: 843517.
13. Nechushkina VM, Kolomiets LA, Kravets O A, et al. Clinical guidelines. Uterine corpus cancer and uterine sarcomas. 2023; 13(3s2): 263-279. (In Russ.)
14. Khokhlova SV, Kolomiets LA, Kravets OA, et al. Practical Guidelines for Drug Treatment of Cervical Cancer. Malignant Tumors: RUSSCO Practical Guidelines. 2021; 11. (In Russ.)
15. Wang Yz, Deng L, Xu Hc, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage cervical cancer. BMC Cancer. 2015; 15: 928.
16. Kochatkov AV, Harlov NS. Biopsy of Sentinel Lymph Nodes Marked with Indocyanine Green in the Surgical Treatment of Endometrial Cancer: A Review of the Literature and Own Experience. Siberian Journal of Oncology. 2019; 18(2): 52-57. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21294/1814-4861- 2019-18-2-52-57.
17. Varghese A, Doglioli M, Fader AN. Updates and Controversies of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Gynecologic Surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 62(4): 733-748.
18. Mäenpää MM, Nieminen K, Tomás EI, et al. Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2016; 215(5): 588.
19. Eoh KJ, Kim TJ, Park JY, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: long-term comparison of outcomes. Front Oncol. 2023; 15(13): 1219371.
20. Pellegrino A, Damiani G.R, Loverro M, et al. Comparison of Robotic and laparoscopic Radical type-B and C hysterectomy for cervical cancer: Long term-outcomes. Acta Biomed. 2017; 23; 88(3): 289-296.
21. Ramirez PT, Frumovtz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal redical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. NEJM. 2018; 379(20): 1895-1904.
22. Ibragimov ZN, Mikaya NA, Trifanov YN, et al. Detection of signaling lymph nodes with indocyanin green (ICG) in patients with endometrial cancer. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2020; S1: 105-11. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18565/aig.2020.1suppl.105-111.
23. Mkrtchyan GB, Ibragimov ZN, Bezhanova EG, et al. The Effectiveness of the Fluorescent Method Using Indocyanine Green in Detecting Signal Lymph Nodes in Patients with Cervical Cancer. Doctor.Ru. 2018; 2(146): 41-45. (In Russ.)
