Liang Xuzhi, He Haijing, Li Yingjin, Chen Sibang, Zhao Jinche, Yang Bing, Lin Huisi, Zeng Hao, Wei Liuyi, Yang Jiahuang, Fan Jiangtao
Department of Gynecology, Guangxi Medical University First Affiliated Hospital, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Department of Glandular Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Youjiang Medical University for Nationalities, Baise, China.
Front Oncol. 2023 Jul 6;13:1159081. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1159081. eCollection 2023.
The evidence for adopting the 3 robotic arm (RA) called the pulling RA rather than a uterine manipulator to manipulate the uterus in the robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for cervical cancer is still limited. We present a single-center retrospective experience comparing using the pulling RA to replace a uterine manipulator vs. using a uterine manipulator to manipulate the uterus in RRH.
106 patients diagnosed with IA, IB1-IB2 and IIA1 cervical cancer were retrospectively included for intraoperative and postoperative parameters analysis. 50 patients received RRH by adopting the pulling RA instead of a uterine manipulator to pull the uterus (3-RA RRH group), and another 56 patients were performed RRH with a uterine manipulator (2-RA RRH group). RRH with the pulling RA consisted of a camera arm, 3 RAs including a pulling RA, and 2 conventional assistant arms (3-RA RRH group). In comparison, RRH with a uterine manipulator included 2 RAs and 2 conventional assistant arms (2-RA RRH group). Besides, 3-RA' RRH group was selected from the 25-50 cases in the 3-RA RRH group based on the learning curve and was compared with the 2-RA RRH group in terms of intraoperative and postoperative parameters.
The patients' early post-operative complication (≤7 days) (p=0.022) and post-operative anemia (p < 0.001) of the 3-RA RRH were significantly lower than that in the 2-RA RRH group. The results of comparing the 2-RA RRH group with the 3-RA' RRH group were consistent with the aforementioned results, except for the operative time (220.4 vs. 197.4 minutes, p=0.022) and hospital stay (7.8 vs. 8.7 days, p=0.034). The median follow-up in the 3-RA RRH and 2-RA RRH groups was 29 and 50 months till March 2023. The 3-RA RRH and 2-RA RRH groups' recurrence rates were 2% (1/50) and 5.4% (3/56), respectively. The mortality in the 3-RA RRH and 2-RA RRH groups was 2% (1/50) and 3.5% (2/56), respectively.
Our study suggested that replacing the uterine manipulator the 3 RA is viable; the results showed comparable surgical outcomes between the two methods. Thus, 3-RA RRH could be considered a well-executed surgical option in well-selected patients.
在宫颈癌机器人根治性子宫切除术(RRH)中,采用名为牵拉机器人手臂(RA)而非子宫操纵器来操作子宫的证据仍然有限。我们展示了一项单中心回顾性研究经验,比较在RRH中使用牵拉RA替代子宫操纵器与使用子宫操纵器操作子宫的情况。
回顾性纳入106例诊断为IA、IB1 - IB2和IIA1期宫颈癌的患者,进行术中和术后参数分析。50例患者采用牵拉RA而非子宫操纵器来牵拉子宫接受RRH(3 - RA RRH组),另外56例患者使用子宫操纵器进行RRH(2 - RA RRH组)。使用牵拉RA的RRH由一个摄像臂、3个RA(包括一个牵拉RA)和2个传统辅助臂组成(3 - RA RRH组)。相比之下,使用子宫操纵器的RRH包括2个RA和2个传统辅助臂(2 - RA RRH组)。此外,基于学习曲线从3 - RA RRH组的25 - 50例病例中选取3 - RA' RRH组,并在术中和术后参数方面与2 - RA RRH组进行比较。
3 - RA RRH组患者术后早期并发症(≤7天)(p = 0.022)和术后贫血(p < 0.001)显著低于2 - RA RRH组。将2 - RA RRH组与3 - RA' RRH组进行比较的结果与上述结果一致,但手术时间(220.4对197.4分钟,p = 0.022)和住院时间(7.8对8.7天,p = 0.034)除外。截至2023年3月,3 - RA RRH组和2 - RA RRH组的中位随访时间分别为29个月和50个月。3 - RA RRH组和2 - RA RRH组的复发率分别为2%(1/50)和5.4%(3/56)。3 - RA RRH组和2 - RA RRH组的死亡率分别为2%(1/50)和3.5%(2/56)。
我们的研究表明,用3个RA替代子宫操纵器是可行的;结果显示两种方法的手术效果相当。因此,对于精心挑选的患者,3 - RA RRH可被视为一种执行良好的手术选择。