Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes and Cost Between Robotic-Assisted and Conventional Laparoscopy for Transperitoneal Infrarenal Para-aortic Lymphadenectomy (TIPAL)

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 674-681

  Coronado, Pluvio J ^a   Fasero, María ^b   Magrina, Javier F ^c   Herraiz, Miguel A ^a   Vidart, José A ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b Hospital Sanitas La Zarzuela   (Spain)

^c MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost; Infrarenal para aortic lymphadenectomy; Laparoscopy; Perioperative outcomes; Robotic

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVENTIONAL LAPAROSCOPY; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HOSPITALIZATION; HOSPITALIZATION COST; HUMAN; LAPAROSCOPY; LYMPH NODE DISSECTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORBIDITY; OPERATION DURATION; OVARY CANCER; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPY; ROBOTICS; TERTIARY CARE CENTER; TRANSPERITONEAL INFRARENAL PARA AORTIC LYMPHADENECTOMY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; WOMEN'S HEALTH; ABDOMINAL AORTA; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL TRIAL; ECONOMICS; LENGTH OF STAY; LYMPH NODE; MIDDLE AGED; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTERINE NEOPLASMS;

ADULT; AGED; AORTA, ABDOMINAL; BLOOD LOSS, SURGICAL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; LYMPH NODE EXCISION; LYMPH NODES; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; UTERINE NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84904350163     PISSN: 15534650     EISSN: 15534669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.01.023     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Possover M., Krause N., Plaul K., Kühne-Heid R., Schneider A. Laparoscopic para-aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy: experience with 150 patients and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 1998, 71:19-28.
2. Chang W.C., Lee L.C., Huang S.C., Sheu B.C. Application of laparoscopic surgery in gynecological oncology. J Formos Med Assoc 2010, 109:558-566.
3. Schlaerth J.B., Spirtos N.M., Carson L.F., Boike G., Adamec T., Stonebraker B. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy followed by immediate laparotomy in women with cervical cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 2002, 85:81-88.
4. Kohler C., Klemm P., Schau A., et al. Introduction of transperitoneal lymphadenectomy in a gynecologic oncology center: analysis of 650 laparoscopic pelvic and/or para-aortic transperitoneal lymphadenectomies. Gynecol Oncol 2004, 95:52-61.
5. Magrina J.F., Kho R.M., Weaver A.L., Montero R.P., Magtibay P.M. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2008, 109:86-91.
6. Magrina J.F., Zanagnolo V., Noble B.N., Kho R.M., Magtibay P. Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2011, 121:100-105.
7. Coronado P.J., Herraiz M.A., Magrina J.F., Fasero M., Vidart J.A. Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012, 165:289-294.
8. Weinberg L., Rao S., Escobar P.F. Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011, 10.1155/2011/852061.
9. Reza M., Maeso S., Blasco J.A., Andradas E. Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg 2010, 97:1772-1783.
10. Lim P.C., Kang E., Park do H. A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol 2011, 120:413-418.
11. Advincula A.P., Song A. The role of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007, 19:331-336.
12. Bandera C.A., Magrina J.F. Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2009, 21:25-30.
13. Holtz D.O., Miroshnichenko G., Finnegan M.O., Chernick M., Dunton C.J. Endometrial cancer surgery costs: robot vs laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010, 17:500-503.
14. Barnett J.C., Judd J.P., Wu J.M., Scales C.D., Myers E.R., Havrilesky L.J. Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2010, 116:685-693.
15. Wright J.D., Burke W.M., Wilde E.T., et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012, 30:783-791.
16. Martino M.A., Martino M.A., Shubella J., et al. A cost analysis of postoperative management in endometrial cancer patients treated by robotics versus laparoscopic approach. Gynecol Oncol 2011, 123:528-531.
17. Venkat P., Chen L.M., Young-Lin N., et al. An economic analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: costs, charges and reimbursements to hospitals and professionals. Gynecol Oncol 2012, 125:237-240.
18. Magrina J.F., Long J.B., Kho R.M., Giles D.L., Montero R.P., Magtibay P.M. Robotic transperitoneal infrarenal aortic lymphadenectomy: technique and results. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010, 20:184-187.
19. Lambaudie E., Narducci F., Leblanc E., et al. Robotically assisted laparoscopy for para-aortic lymphadenectomy: technical description and results of an initial experience. Surg Endosc 2012, 26:2430-2435.
20. Abu-Rustum N.R., Chi D.S., Sonoda Y., et al. Transperitoneal laparoscopic pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection using the argon-beam coagulator and monopolar instruments: an 8-year study and description of technique. Gynecol Oncol 2003, 89:504-513.
21. Ghezzi F., Cromi A., Uccella S., et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the surgical management of apparent early stage ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2007, 105:409-413.
22. Boggess J., Gehrig P., Cantrell L., et al. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008, 199:360.e1.
23. Seamon L.G., Cohn D.E., Henretta M.S., et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy?. Gynecol Oncol 2009, 113:36-41.
24. Cardenas-Goicoechea J., Adams S., Bhat S.B., Randall T.C. Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center. Gynecol Oncol 2010, 117:224-228.
25. Tinelli R., Malzoni M., Cosentino F., et al. Robotics versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol 2011, 18:2622-2628.
26. Magrina J.F., Zanagnolo V., Giles D., Noble B.N., Kho R.M., Magtibay P.M. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes and recurrence with laparoscopy, vaginal/laparoscopy and laparotomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2011, 32:476-480.
27. Bell M.C., Torgerson J., Seshadri-Kreaden U., Suttle A.W., Hunt S. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 2008, 111:407-411.
28. De Nardis S.A., Holloway R.W., Bigsby G.E., Pikaart D.P., Ahmad S., Finkler N.J. Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2008, 111:412-417.
29. Veljovich D.S., Paley P.J., Drescher C.W., Everett E.N., Shah C., Peters W.A. Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008, 198:679.e1-679.e10.
30. Gehrig P.A., Cantrell L.A., Shafer A., Abaid L.N., Mendivil A., Boggess J.F. What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman?. Gynecol Oncol 2008, 111:41-45.
31. Díaz-Feijoo B., Gil-Ibáñez B., Pérez-Benavente A., et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopy for extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2014, 132:98-101.
32. Seamon L.G., Fowler J.M., Richardson D.L., et al. A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009, 114:162-167.
33. Knight J., Escobar P.F. Cost and robotic surgery in gynecology. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014, 40:12-17.
34. Reynisson P., Persson J. Hospital costs for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2013, 130:95-99.
35. Lau S., Vaknin Z., Ramana-Kumar A.V., Halliday D., Franco E.L., Gotlieb W.H. Outcomes and cost comparisons after introducing a robotics program for endometrial cancer surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2012, 119:717-724.
36. Ramirez P.T., Adams S., Boggess J.F., et al. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology consensus statement. Developed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology's Clinical Practice Robotics Task Force. Gynecol Oncol 2012, 124:180-184.