J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2021 Aug 30:S1701-2163(21)00611-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2021.07.021. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare surgical and oncological outcomes in the treatment of endometrial cancer between laparotomy and minimally invasive surgery. The secondary objective was to determine which MIS approach was the most beneficial.
METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective review of all endometrial cancer surgeries performed between November 1, 2012 and October 31, 2017 in a gynaecologic oncology unit of a university hospital. Descriptive statistics were used to compare histopathologic results and oncological outcomes, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to compare survival.
RESULTS: A total of 735 cases were reviewed. The majority of patients (77%) underwent either laparotomy (35%) or robotic-assisted hysterectomy (42%); the remaining patients underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy (12%) or a laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (8.7%). There was a statistically significant overall survival benefit (P = 0.02), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.0001), and fewer early surgical complications (<30 d; P = 0.0002), as well as a survival benefit in elderly patients (>70 y) in the robotic-assisted hysterectomy group (P = 0.043) than the laparotomy group. Operating time was shorter in the laparotomy group (P < 0.0001). Recurrence rates in stage 1 low-risk disease were similar between groups.
CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgical approaches, particularly robotic surgery, do not compromise oncologic outcomes, especially for early-stage low-risk disease. In addition, these approaches are associated with fewer early surgical complications and shorter hospital stay, with significantly more same-day discharges. Overall survival and survival in a subgroup of elderly patients were significantly better in the robotic-assisted hysterectomy group.
PMID:34474173 | DOI:10.1016/j.jogc.2021.07.021
