Department of Gynecology, IRCCS, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Jun;129(3):593-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.02.030. Epub 2013 Feb 27.
Patients with high anesthesiological risk due to old age, obesity and severe co-morbidities alone or in combination are considered as poor candidates for extensive surgical staging procedures, especially if through minimally invasive approach. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic surgical staging of endometrial and cervical cancers in the medically ill patient.
Between 07-2007 and 12-2012, consecutive patients scheduled for staging for endometrial or cervical cancer were directed towards robotic staging and divided into two groups according to their starting score in the American Society for Anaesthesiologists (ASA): Group 1 (ASA 1-2) and Group 2 (ASA ≥3).
Overall, 169 (71.9%) patients had ASA 1-2 whereas 66 (28.1%) had ASA ≥3. ASA ≥3 were older (p<0.0001) with a greater proportion of co-morbidities (p<0.0001), as well as of Class II (4.7% vs 19.7%; p=0.0007) and Class III obesity (2.4% vs 31.8%; p<0.0001). No differences were found between groups in terms of operative time, blood loss, intra- and post-operative complications, conversion rate and hospitalization. No differences were recorded either in terms of staging procedures performed or in terms of number of pelvic (p=0.72) and para-aortic (p=0.86) lymph nodes retrieved.
Despite theoretical concerns about the performance of robotic surgery in patients with high anesthesiological risk, our experience showed that robotics is a feasible, safe and viable option for the management of endometrial and cervical cancers also in this more vulnerable group of patients.
由于年龄、肥胖和严重合并症等因素,麻醉风险较高的患者,单独或联合存在,被认为是广泛外科分期手术的不佳候选者,特别是如果采用微创方法。我们旨在评估机器人手术在患有内科疾病的子宫内膜癌和宫颈癌患者中的可行性和安全性。
在 2007 年 7 月至 2012 年 12 月期间,连续安排进行子宫内膜癌或宫颈癌分期的患者被导向进行机器人分期,并根据他们在美国麻醉医师学会(ASA)的起始评分分为两组:第 1 组(ASA 1-2)和第 2 组(ASA ≥3)。
总体而言,169 例(71.9%)患者的 ASA 评分为 1-2,而 66 例(28.1%)患者的 ASA 评分为 ≥3。ASA ≥3 的患者年龄更大(p<0.0001),合并症的比例更高(p<0.0001),以及 II 级(4.7% vs 19.7%;p=0.0007)和 III 级肥胖(2.4% vs 31.8%;p<0.0001)的比例更高。两组在手术时间、出血量、围手术期并发症、转化率和住院时间方面无差异。在分期手术的进行方面以及盆腔(p=0.72)和腹主动脉旁(p=0.86)淋巴结的数量方面也未记录到差异。
尽管存在关于机器人手术在高麻醉风险患者中表现的理论担忧,但我们的经验表明,机器人手术是子宫内膜癌和宫颈癌管理的一种可行、安全且可行的选择,即使在这群更脆弱的患者中也是如此。