Center of Hope, Renown Regional Medical Center, Department of Gynecological Oncology, 75 Pringle Way, F-11, Reno, NV 89502, USA.
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 Nov-Dec;17(6):739-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.07.008.
To determine the learning curve for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for surgical treatment of endometrial cancer.
An analysis of robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy vs total laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy and laparotomy with total abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (Canadian Task Force classification II-1).
Solo, experienced, minimally invasive gynecologic oncology practice in a tertiary hospital.
One hundred forty-eight patients including 56 patients who underwent robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection, 56 patients who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection, and 36 patients who underwent traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic and paraaortic lymph node dissection performed by the same surgeon for treatment of endometrial cancer.
Robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy, total laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy, and traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy were performed. Data were categorized by chronologic order of cases into groups of 20 patients each. The learning curve of the surgical procedure was estimated by measuring operative time with respect to chronologic order of each patient who had undergone the respective procedure.
For the 3 surgical procedures, data analyzed included mean age, body mass index, operative time, blood loss, lymph node retrieval, and complications. Mean (SD); 95% confidence interval [CI]) operative time for the 3 procedures was statistically significant: 162.5 (53) minutes (95% CI, 148.6-176.4]), 192.3 (55.5) minutes (95% CI, 177.6-207.0), and 136.9 (32.3) minutes (95% CI, 126.3-147.5), respectively. Analysis of operative time for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymph node dissection with respect to chronologic order of each group of 20 cases demonstrated a decrease in operative time: 183.2 (69) minutes (95% CI; 153.0-213.4) for cases 1 to 20, 152.7 (39.8) minutes (95% CI, 135.3-170.1) for cases 21 to 40, and 148.8 (36.7) minutes (95% CI, 130.8-166.8) for cases 41 to 56. For the groups with laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy and traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy, there was no difference in operative time with respect to chronologic group order of cases. There was a difference between the number of lymph nodes retrieved between robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (26.7 [12.8]; 95% CI, 23.3-30.1) compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (45.1 [20.9]; 95% CI, 39.6-50.6) and traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (55.8 [23.4]; 95% CI, 48.2-63.4). The rate of intraoperative complications for laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy was 12.5% (7 of 56) compared with 0 % for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy. The rate of postoperative complications was 14.3% (8 of 56), 21.4% (12 of 56), and 19.4% (7 of 36), respectively, for the 3 groups. There was less blood loss with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (89.3 [45.4]; 95% CI, 77.4-101.2) compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (209.1 [91.8]; 95% CI, 185.1-233.1) and traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (266.0 [145.1]; 95% CI, 218.6-313.4). Duration of hospitalization was shorter in the group with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (1.6 [0.7]; 95% CI, 1.4-1.8) compared with the groups who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral lymphadenectomy (2.6 [0.9]; 95% CI, 2.4-2.8) or traditional total abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy (4.9 [1.9]; 95% CI, (4.3-5.5).
The learning curve for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymph node dissection seems to be easier compared with that for laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymph node dissection for surgical management of endometrial cancer.
确定机器人辅助子宫切除术联合淋巴结切除术治疗子宫内膜癌的学习曲线。
机器人辅助子宫切除术联合淋巴结切除术与全腹腔镜子宫切除术联合淋巴结切除术和剖腹全子宫切除术联合淋巴结切除术的分析(加拿大任务组分类 II-1)。
在一家三级医院,由一位经验丰富的微创妇科肿瘤专家进行。
148 例患者,其中 56 例患者接受了机器人辅助子宫切除术联合双侧盆腔和主动脉旁淋巴结清扫术,56 例患者接受了全腹腔镜子宫切除术联合双侧盆腔和主动脉旁淋巴结清扫术,36 例患者接受了传统的全腹腔镜子宫切除术联合双侧盆腔和主动脉旁淋巴结清扫术。
机器人辅助子宫切除术联合双侧淋巴结清扫术、全腹腔镜子宫切除术联合双侧淋巴结清扫术和传统的全腹腔镜子宫切除术联合双侧淋巴结清扫术均由同一位外科医生进行。数据按照病例的时间顺序分为每组 20 例。通过测量每个接受相应手术的患者的手术时间来估计手术过程的学习曲线。
对于这 3 种手术,分析的数据包括平均年龄、体重指数、手术时间、出血量、淋巴结检出数和并发症。3 种手术的平均(SD);95%置信区间[CI])手术时间具有统计学意义:162.5(53)分钟(95%CI,148.6-176.4)、192.3(55.5)分钟(95%CI,177.6-207.0)和 136.9(32.3)分钟(95%CI,126.3-147.5)。对 20 例患者每例的时间顺序进行分析,发现机器人辅助子宫切除术联合双侧淋巴结清扫术的手术时间呈下降趋势:第 1 组至第 20 组为 183.2(69)分钟(95%CI;153.0-213.4),第 21 组至第 40 组为 152.7(39.8)分钟(95%CI,135.3-170.1),第 41 组至第 56 组为 148.8(36.7)分钟(95%CI,130.8-166.8)。对于腹腔镜子宫切除术联合淋巴结清扫术和传统的全腹腔镜子宫切除术联合淋巴结切除术的组,手术时间与病例的时间顺序无关。机器人辅助子宫切除术联合双侧淋巴结清扫术的淋巴结检出数(26.7[12.8];95%CI,23.3-30.1)与腹腔镜子宫切除术联合双侧淋巴结清扫术(45.1[20.9];95%CI,39.6-50.6)和传统的全腹腔镜子宫切除术联合淋巴结清扫术(55.8[23.4];95%CI,48.2-63.4)相比有差异。腹腔镜子宫切除术联合淋巴结清扫术的术中并发症发生率为 12.5%(7/56),而机器人辅助子宫切除术联合双侧淋巴结清扫术的发生率为 0%。术后并发症发生率分别为 14.3%(8/56)、21.4%(12/56)和 19.4%(7/36)。机器人辅助子宫切除术联合双侧淋巴结清扫术的出血量(89.3[45.4];95%CI,77.4-101.2)明显少于腹腔镜子宫切除术联合双侧淋巴结清扫术(209.1[91.8];95%CI,185.1-233.1)和传统的全腹腔镜子宫切除术联合淋巴结清扫术(266.0[145.1];95%CI,218.6-313.4)。机器人辅助子宫切除术联合双侧淋巴结清扫术的住院时间(1.6[0.7];95%CI,1.4-1.8)明显短于腹腔镜子宫切除术联合双侧淋巴结清扫术(2.6[0.9];95%CI,2.4-2.8)或传统的全腹腔镜子宫切除术联合淋巴结清扫术(4.9[1.9];95%CI,4.3-5.5)。
与腹腔镜子宫切除术联合淋巴结清扫术相比,机器人辅助子宫切除术联合淋巴结清扫术的学习曲线似乎更容易。