Comparing Single-Site and Multiport Robotic Hysterectomy with Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping for Endometrial Cancer: Surgical Outcomes and Cost Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare operative times, surgical outcomes, and costs of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) vs multiport robotic (MPR) total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) with sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping for low-risk endometrial cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Academic university hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients with a biopsy-proven diagnosis of complex atypical hyperplasia (CAH) or low-grade (1 or 2) endometrial cancer with body mass index <30 kg/m and undergoing robotic TLH and SLN mapping between 2012 and 2016 were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgical outcomes and cost data were collected retrospectively and analyzed based on the surgical approach with R-LESS vs MPR assistance.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients who met the inclusion criteria were identified, including 14 patients who underwent R-LESS TLH with SLN mapping and 13 patients who underwent MPR TLH with SLN mapping. Median uterine weight was comparable in the 2 cohorts (111.3 g vs 83.8 g; p = .33). Operative and console times were equivalent with the R-LESS and MPR approaches (median, 175 minutes vs 184 minutes, p = .61 and 136 vs 140 minutes, p = .12, respectively). Median estimated blood loss was 50 mL in both cohorts. Successful bilateral SLN mapping occurred in 85.7% of the R-LESS procedures and 76.9% of MPR procedures. No intraoperative or 30-day complications were encountered, and all patients were discharged within 23 hours of surgery. MPR was associated with additional disposable instrument and drape costs of $460 to $660 compared with R-LESS, depending on the surgeon's instrument selection. Average total hospital charges were lower for R-LESS procedures ($13,410 vs $15,952; p < .05).

CONCLUSION

In highly selected patients with CAH or low-grade endometrial cancer undergoing TLH and SLN mapping, R-LESS appears to result in equivalent perioperative outcomes as a MPR approach while offering a more cost-effective option. Further research is needed to determine the benefits of R-LESS procedures in the gynecologic oncology setting.