Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

JKMU Ethical Policies

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

News

Metric

Editorial Policies

Data Sharing Policy

Robotic Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopy and Laparotomy for Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Imam Reza Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Surgical Oncology Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

 Background: This research aimed to evaluate differences in overall survival, recurrence frequency, and both intraoperative and postoperative results in ovarian cancer (OC) patients treated with robotic surgery, laparoscopic procedures, or open laparotomy.
Methods: In this study, comprehensive searches were done in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus until September 15, 2023. The main outcome was to compare the association between robotic surgery and other approaches: overall mortality rate, recurrence rate, postoperative and intraoperative complications, blood transfusion, duration of operation, conversion to open, estimated blood loss (EBL), pelvic/para-aortic lymph nodes, and duration of stay in the hospital.
Results: Ultimately, a total of 9 studies were included. Robotic surgery had a significant relationship between the lowest EBL and the duration of stay in the hospital in comparison with laparotomy, with a mean difference of -292.26 mL and -3.54 days, respectively. Also, the rate of postoperative complications (OR: 0.41), blood transfusion (OR: 0.03), lower overall mortality (OR: 0.22), and recurrence rate (OR: 0.48) were lower in robotic surgery in comparison with laparotomy. In addition, robotic surgery had significantly shorter operation times than laparoscopy, with a mean difference of -33.21 minutes. Furthermore, the rate of blood transfusion (OR: 0.10) and conversion to open (OR: 0.35) were lower in robotic surgery in comparison with laparotomy.
Conclusion: This study demonstrated that robotic surgery could be a safe, viable, and effective alternative for those suffering from OC, offering lower rates of conversion to open surgery and blood transfusion compared to laparoscopy.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References
  1. Penny SM. Ovarian cancer: an overview. Radiol Technol. 2020;91(6):561-75.
  2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660.
  3. Benedet JL, Bender H, Jones H 3rd, Ngan HY, Pecorelli S. FIGO staging classifications and clinical practice guidelines in the management of gynecologic cancers. FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000;70(2):209-62.
  4. Minig L, Padilla Iserte P, Zorrero C, Zanagnolo V. Robotic surgery in women with ovarian cancer: surgical technique and evidence of clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(3):309-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.10.014.
  5. Griffiths CT. Surgical resection of tumor bulk in the primary treatment of ovarian carcinoma. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1975;42:101-4.
  6. Rabinovich A. Robotic surgery for ovarian cancers: individualization of the surgical approach to select ovarian cancer patients. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(3):547-53. doi: 10.1002/rcs.1684.
  7. Farghaly SA. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: farghaly’s technique. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2013;34(3):205-7.
  8. Tantitamit T, Lee CL. Is it the time for laparoscopic management of early-stage ovarian malignancies? Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2018;7(3):93-103. doi: 10.4103/gmit.Gmit_59_18.
  9. Park HJ, Kim DW, Yim GW, Nam EJ, Kim S, Kim YT. Staging laparoscopy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(1):58.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.04.013.
  10. Weber S, McCann CK, Boruta DM, Schorge JO, Growdon WB. Laparoscopic surgical staging of early ovarian cancer. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2011;4(3-4):117-22.
  11. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Ovarian Cancer Including Fallopian Tube Cancer and Primary Peritoneal Cancer (Version 1.2019). Available from: https://www.nccn. org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ovarian_blocks.pdf.
  12. Alkatout I, Mettler L, Maass N, Ackermann J. Robotic surgery in gynecology. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2016;17(4):224-32. doi: 10.5152/jtgga.2016.16187 .
  13. Goel A, Pamnani S, Anjankar A. Robot-assisted surgery in the treatment of gynecological carcinoma and malignancies: introduction to the da Vinci robotic surgery system. Cureus. 2023;15(8):e43035. doi: 10.7759/cureus.43035.
  14. Ramirez PT, Adams S, Boggess JF, Burke WM, Frumovitz MM, Gardner GJ, 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(2):180-4. doi: 10.1016/j. ygyno.2011.11.006.
  15. Vizza E, Mancini E, Baiocco E, Vicenzoni C, Patrizi L, Saltari M, et al. Robotic transperitoneal aortic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic cancer: a new robotic surgical technique and review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(12):3832-8. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2411-6.
  16. Sinno AK, Fader AN. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(4):922-32. doi: 10.1016/j. fertnstert.2014.08.020.
  17. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2000.
  18. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13. doi: 10.1186/1471- 2288-5-13.
  19. Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, Tong T. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(6):1785-805. doi: 10.1177/0962280216669183.
  20. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:135. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135.
  21. Van Trappen P, de Cuypere E, Claes N. Robotic surgery in early and advanced ovarian cancer: case selection for surgical staging and interval debulking surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023;280:7-11. doi: 10.1016/j. ejogrb.2022.11.005.
  22. Magrina JF, Cetta RL, Chang YH, Guevara G, Magtibay PM. Analysis of secondary cytoreduction for recurrent ovarian cancer by robotics, laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129(2):336-40. doi: 10.1016/j. ygyno.2013.01.015.
  23. Facer B, Wang F, Grijalva CG, Alvarez RD, Shu XO. Survival outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopy versus traditional laparoscopy in clinical stage I epithelial ovarian cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(5):474.e1-12. doi: 10.1016/j. ajog.2019.10.104.
  24. Bellia A, Vitale SG, Laganà AS, Cannone F, Houvenaeghel G, Rua S, et al. Feasibility and surgical outcomes of conventional and robot-assisted laparoscopy for early-stage ovarian cancer: a retrospective, multicenter analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;294(3):615-22. doi: 10.1007/s00404-016-4087-9.
  25. Zhang Y, Grant MS, Zhang X, Paraghamian SE, Tan X, Clark LH. Comparing laparotomy with robot-assisted interval debulking surgery for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28(6):1237-43. doi: 10.1016/j. jmig.2020.11.015.
  26. Feuer GA, Lakhi N, Barker J, Salmieri S, Burrell M. Perioperative and clinical outcomes in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer using a robotic or abdominal approach. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131(3):520-4. doi: 10.1016/j. ygyno.2013.09.022.
  27. Chen CH, Chiu LH, Chen HH, Chan C, Liu WM. Comparison of robotic approach, laparoscopic approach and laparotomy in treating epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(2):268-75. doi: 10.1002/rcs.1655.
  28. Cianci S, Capozzi VA, Rosati A, Rumolo V, Corrado G, Uccella S, et al. Different surgical approaches for early-stage ovarian cancer staging. A large monocentric experience. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:880681. doi: 10.3389/ fmed.2022.880681.
  29. Gallotta V, Cicero C, Conte C, Vizzielli G, Petrillo M, Fagotti A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic staging for early ovarian cancer: a case-matched control study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(2):293-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.11.004.
  30. Visco AG, Advincula AP. Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1369-84. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0b013e31818f3c17.
  31. Moon AS, Garofalo J, Koirala P, Vu ML, Chuang L. Robotic surgery in gynecology. Surgical Clinics. 2020;100(2):445-60. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2019.12.007.
  32. Fagotti A, Corrado G, Fanfani F, Mancini M, Paglia A, Vizzielli G, et al. Robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSS-H) vs. laparoendoscopic single-site hysterectomy (LESS-H) in early endometrial cancer: a double-institution case-control study. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130(1):219-23. doi: 10.1016/j. ygyno.2013.04.004.

 

  1. Vizzielli G, Lucidi A, Gallotta V, Petrillo M, Dessole M, Fagotti A, et al. Robotic total mesometrial resection versus laparoscopic total mesometrial resection in early cervical cancer: a case-control study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(5):804-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.04.006.
  2. Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Noble BN, Kho RM, Magtibay P. Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(1):100-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.045.
  3. Jorgensen K, Melamed A, Wu CF, Nitecki R, Pareja R, Fagotti A, et al. Minimally invasive interval debulking surgery for advanced ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 2023;172:130-7. doi: 10.1016/j. ygyno.2023.01.017.
  4. Kremer KM, Lee J, Carlson MJ, Lococo SJ, Miller DS, Lea JS. Practice patterns using minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of ovarian cancer: a survey of physician members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2020;33:100617. doi: 10.1016/j.gore.2020.100617.
  5. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(7):695- 700. doi: 10.1200/jco.2011.38.8645.
  6. Janda M, Gebski V, Davies LC, Forder P, Brand A, Hogg R, et al. Effect of total laparoscopic hysterectomy vs total abdominal hysterectomy on disease-free survival among women with stage I endometrial cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;317(12):1224-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.2068.
  7. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895-904. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1806395.
  8. Melamed A, Rauh-Hain JA, Ramirez PT. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: when adoption of a novel treatment precedes prospective, randomized evidence. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(33):3069-74. doi: 10.1200/ jco.19.01164.
  9. Knisely A, Gamble CR, St Clair CM, Hou JY, Khoury-Collado F, Gockley AA, et al. The role of minimally invasive surgery in the care of women with ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28(3):537- 43. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.11.007.
  10. Tang Q, Liu W, Jiang D, Tang J, Zhou Q, Zhang J. Perioperative and survival outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery, comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy, for ovarian cancer: a network meta-analysis. J Oncol. 2022;2022:2084774. doi: 10.1155/2022/2084774.
  11. Shi C, Gao Y, Yang Y, Zhang L, Yu J, Zhang T. Comparison of efficacy of robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in the treatment of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):162. doi: 10.1186/s12957-019-1702-9.
  12. Lambrou N, Diaz R, Gatcliffe T, Gil L, Eisermann A. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy for primary or recurrent ovarian cancer: a comparison with laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125:S122. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.12.295.
  13. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, 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(4):360.e1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.012.
  14. Zapardiel I, Zanagnolo V, Kho RM, Magrina JF, Magtibay PM. Ovarian remnant syndrome: comparison of laparotomy, laparoscopy and robotic surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91(8):965-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01461.x.
  15. Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(1):86-91. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.011.
  16. Varghese A, Doglioli M, Fader AN. Updates and controversies of robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2019;62(4):733-48. doi: 10.1097/ grf.0000000000000489.
  17. Novellis P, Bottoni E, Voulaz E, Cariboni U, Testori A, Bertolaccini L, et al. Robotic surgery, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and open surgery for early stage lung cancer: comparison of costs and outcomes at a single institute. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(2):790-8. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.123.

 

Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences
Volume 32
Pages 1-8
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics