Medical University Pleven, University Hospital "Saint Marina", Pleven, 5800, Bulgaria.
Gynecologic Oncology Program, AdventHealth Cancer Institute, 2501 N. Orange Ave., Suite 786, Orlando, FL, 32804, USA.
J Robot Surg. 2022 Dec;16(6):1367-1382. doi: 10.1007/s11701-022-01374-0. Epub 2022 Feb 10.
The study aim was to assess the peri-operative, oncologic, and survival outcomes for patients with endometrial cancer (EC) managed by abdominal hysterectomy (AH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), or robotic hysterectomy (RH) approaches at premier centers in Bulgaria. We analyzed histologically diagnosed EC cases operated via any of the three surgical methods during 2008-2019. Data analyses included patients and tumor characteristics, peri-operative outcomes, and disease status. We grouped FIGO stages I and II to represent early-stage EC and to investigate their survival. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Consecutive 917 patients (AH = 466; LH = 60, RH = 391) formed the basis of study analyses. Most of demographics and tumor characteristics of the patients were comparable across the groups except few minor variations (e.g., LH/RH cases were younger, heavier, more stage IA, endometrioid, G1, low-risk group). LH and RH group cases had significantly lower operative time than AH (p < 0.001), shorter hospital length-of-stay (p < 0.001), higher post-operative Hgb (p < 0.001). RH cases had fewer blood transfusions than AH or LH (p < 0.001). Cox multivariate analyses indicate that OS was not influenced by the type of surgical approach. Despite the fact that the DFS in "early-stage" EC is significantly better in AH group than RH, the type of surgery (i.e., AH, LH, or RH) for "all stages" is insignificant factor for DFS. With our long-term experience, minimally invasive surgical approach resulted in superior peri-operative, oncologic, and survival outcomes. Specifically, RH is not only safe in terms of post-operative results, but also for mortality and oncologic rates.
本研究旨在评估保加利亚顶级医疗中心中,采用经腹子宫切除术(AH)、腹腔镜子宫切除术(LH)或机器人辅助子宫切除术(RH)治疗子宫内膜癌(EC)的围手术期、肿瘤学和生存结局。我们分析了 2008 年至 2019 年期间通过上述三种手术方法治疗的组织学诊断为 EC 的病例。数据分析包括患者和肿瘤特征、围手术期结局以及疾病状况。我们将国际妇产科联合会(FIGO)分期 I 和 II 归为早期 EC,并研究其生存情况。采用 Kaplan-Meier 和 Cox 回归分析来确定无疾病生存率(DFS)和总生存率(OS)。917 例连续患者(AH=466;LH=60;RH=391)纳入研究分析。除了少数差异(例如,LH/RH 病例更年轻、更重、更倾向于 IA 期、子宫内膜样、G1、低危组)外,各组患者的大多数人口统计学和肿瘤特征都具有可比性。LH 和 RH 组的手术时间明显短于 AH 组(p<0.001),住院时间更短(p<0.001),术后血红蛋白水平更高(p<0.001)。RH 组的输血需求少于 AH 或 LH 组(p<0.001)。Cox 多变量分析表明,手术方式对 OS 无影响。尽管在早期 EC 中,AH 组的 DFS 明显优于 RH 组,但对于“所有分期”,手术类型(即 AH、LH 或 RH)并非 DFS 的重要因素。根据我们的长期经验,微创外科方法可带来更好的围手术期、肿瘤学和生存结局。具体而言,RH 不仅在术后结果方面安全,而且在死亡率和肿瘤学方面也有优势。