Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost between robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopy for transperitoneal infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomy (TIPAL).

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic transperitoneal infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomy (TIPAL) for treatment of gynecologic malignant conditions.

DESIGN

Prospective non-randomized study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Tertiary center for women's health.

PATIENTS

Sixty-two patients with gynecologic cancer operated on by the same surgical team.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty-two patients underwent TIPAL via robotic-assisted laparoscopy, and 30 via conventional laparoscopy. Comparison analyses of perioperative outcomes and estimated costs were performed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were no differences between robotic-assisted and laparoscopy insofar as age, body mass index, presurgical morbidity, operating time (92.5 minutes for robotics vs 96.6 minutes for laparoscopy), number of aortic nodes (12 vs. 12), hospitalization stay (2 vs. 2 days), or rate of complications (12.5% vs. 13.3%). Blood loss tended to be lower in the robotic group (75.0 vs. 92.5 mL; p = .08). Surgical cost was higher in the robotic group ($3.42 vs. $2.55; p < .001), although hospitalization cost was similar.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted and laparoscopy provide similar perioperative outcomes. However, the robotic-assisted approach is associated with higher surgical cost.