We have located links that may give you full text access.
A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.
Gynecologic Oncology 2009 June
OBJECTIVE: To compare robotic radical hysterectomy to laparoscopic and radical abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.
METHODS: Prospective analyses of thirty-two consecutive patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy were compared to 17 patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and 14 patients undergoing radical abdominal hysterectomy.
RESULTS: Operative time for the robotic group was 2.4 h+/-0.8 and not significantly different from the laparoscopic group at 2.2 h+/-0.7, nor the laparotomy group (1.9 h+/-0.6, p=0.05). The estimated blood loss for patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy was 130 cm(3) +/-119.4. This was significantly less than the laparotomy group (621.4 mL+/-294.0, p<0.0001), but not the laparoscopic group (209.4 mL+/-169.9, p=0.09). The robotic group had an average of 32.4 total nodes retrieved, as compared to 18.6 and 25.7 nodes retrieved in the laparoscopy and laparotomy cohorts, respectively. All differences were significant (p<0.0001 and p<0.05). Mean length of hospital stay was 2.6, 2.3 and 4.0 days in the robotic, laparoscopic, and laparotomy cohorts respectively. The incidence of postoperative complications was less in the robotic cohort (18.8%) as compared to the laparoscopic (23.5%), and laparotomy cohorts (28.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy is feasible and may be preferable over laparoscopic or radical abdominal hysterectomy.
METHODS: Prospective analyses of thirty-two consecutive patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy were compared to 17 patients undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and 14 patients undergoing radical abdominal hysterectomy.
RESULTS: Operative time for the robotic group was 2.4 h+/-0.8 and not significantly different from the laparoscopic group at 2.2 h+/-0.7, nor the laparotomy group (1.9 h+/-0.6, p=0.05). The estimated blood loss for patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy was 130 cm(3) +/-119.4. This was significantly less than the laparotomy group (621.4 mL+/-294.0, p<0.0001), but not the laparoscopic group (209.4 mL+/-169.9, p=0.09). The robotic group had an average of 32.4 total nodes retrieved, as compared to 18.6 and 25.7 nodes retrieved in the laparoscopy and laparotomy cohorts, respectively. All differences were significant (p<0.0001 and p<0.05). Mean length of hospital stay was 2.6, 2.3 and 4.0 days in the robotic, laparoscopic, and laparotomy cohorts respectively. The incidence of postoperative complications was less in the robotic cohort (18.8%) as compared to the laparoscopic (23.5%), and laparotomy cohorts (28.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy is feasible and may be preferable over laparoscopic or radical abdominal hysterectomy.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app