Clinical comparative study of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic surgery in patients with cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND

A new era in minimally invasive surgery has been ushered in by Leonardo's robot surgical system, but the safety and effectiveness in cervical cancer is lake of evidence. This study aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with cervical cancer.

METHODS

Patients with cervical cancer who had radical surgery at the first affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University between January 2017 and June 2022 were enrolled. Patients in the LRH and RRH groups were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching (PSM), all patients were followed up to September 2023, cancer recurrence occurred or death, whichever came first.

RESULTS

522 cervical cancer patients were enrolled in this study, 261 of whom were in the LRH group and 261 of whom were in the RRH group. Univariate analysis showed that the RRH group had less intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time and hospital stay, lower incidence of composite complications and urinary retention, but had higher hospitalization costs. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that LRH was an independent protective factor for composite complications (OR 1.531; 95%CI,1.022 to 2.295; P = .039). Cox regression analysis with cancer recurrence as the endpoint showed that LRH (HR 0.320; 95%CI,0.255 to 0.401; P < .001) and longer operation time (HR 0.995; 95%CI,0.993 to 0.997; P < .001) reduced 68% and 5% risk of cancer recurrence ; results also indicated that the older age (HR 1.017; 95%CI,1.007 to 1.027; P = .001) and postoperative complications (HR 22.410; 95%CI,16.019 to 31.350; P < .001) would increase 224% recurrence risk of cancer recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LRH and RRH demonstrated good short-term efficacy, with RRH outperforming LRH in terms of reduced intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stays and operation times, and fewer composite complications. However, the RRH group faces a higher risk of early cancer recurrence and incurs greater expenses. In summary, comprehensive long-term prospective studies are needed to thoroughly explore the effectiveness and safety of both LRH and RRH.