Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques
Introduction
Surgical staging for endometrial cancer is considered the standard of care. Surgical approach can vary from traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy, and the newest surgical approach — robotic total laparoscopic hysterectomy with staging. Robotic gynecologic surgery has been FDA approved since March 2005, and several investigators have switched to the robotic approach. The advantage of robotic surgery is that it restores the 3 dimensional approach to surgery that is lost with laparoscopy while maintaining the minimally invasive approach. Additionally, robotic instruments articulate with 6 degrees of freedom, thus allowing the surgeon to more readily suture and perform difficult dissections. Critics of robotic surgery are quick to discuss the time factor for learning and performing robotic surgery and the cost of robotic surgery. This retrospective review analyzes all endometrial cancer staging procedures performed by a single surgeon at a single institution via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy, and robotic surgery.
Section snippets
Methods
A retrospective chart review was performed on all endometrial cancer staging procedures done by a single board certified gynecologic oncologist at a single institution. The practice of this surgeon is a private practice without ob/gyn residents. The dates of accrual for patients were from May 2000 to June 2007. During the study period, the surgeon started performing standard laparoscopic hysterectomies with nodes in 2003, and robotic hysterectomies with nodes in 2005. Once the surgeon started
Results
The demographic data indicate that women who underwent laparotomy were oldest with a mean age of 72.3 years. This was significantly higher than the mean age of women who underwent standard laparoscopy (mean age 68.4 years), and women who underwent robotic staging (mean age of 63.0 years). The body mass index was highest for women who underwent robotic staging with a mean BMI of 33.0, but this was not statistically different from the laparoscopic group with an average BMI of 31.9, and the
Discussion
The conversion to minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer has increased in the field of gynecologic oncology. Barakat et al. published their analysis of the technique used for endometrial cancer. They found that there was an increase in the use of laparoscopy for staging between 1995–2004 [2]. Likewise, Naumann et al. surveyed the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists and found that about 50% of gynecologic oncologists utilize laparoscopy for endometrial cancer staging [3]. As robotic
Complications
Our data indicate that the peri-operative complications are significantly higher for laparotomy procedures than compared to robotic surgery. Furthermore, robotic surgery had resulted in fewer complications than standard laparoscopy. This is similar to other investigators. Frigerio et al. compared laparoscopic assisted hysterectomy with staging to laparotomy and found fewer post-operative complications in the Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy group (6 vs. 11 cases; p < 0.001) [4].
Length of stay
Our data, like others, demonstrate a significant decrease in hospital stay for both standard laparoscopy and robotic cases compared to laparotomy. Frigerio et al. demonstrated a shorter hospital stay for laparoscopic assisted surgery compared to laparotomy (4 vs. 8.5 days; p < 0.001) [4]. Obermair found the mean post-operative hospital stay was 4.4 (+/− 3.9) days in the Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy group and 7.9 (+/− 3.0) days in the Total Abdominal Hysterectomy group (P < 0.0001) [7].
Cost
Certainly, the length of stay is directly related to the cost, and length of stay is the driving force behind the increased cost of laparotomy. Actual cost to the institution is difficult to obtain. Charges are more readily obtainable and should reflect the cost but may not. In our data, both charge data and cost data rank laparotomy as the most expensive modality followed by robotic and laparoscopy. The validity of charge comparisons, however, depends upon the charge structure of the health
Conflicts of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
References (10)
- et al.
Twelve-year experience in the management of endometrial cancer: a change in surgical and postoperative radiation approaches
Gynecol. Oncol.
(2007) - et al.
The use of adjuvant radiation therapy in early endometrial cancer by members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists in 2005
Gynecol. Oncol.
(2007) - et al.
Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy in endometrial cancer
Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet.
(2006) - et al.
Pilot study assessing robotic laparoscopic hysterectomy and patient outcomes
J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol.
(2006) - et al.
Analysis of survival after laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy compared with the conventional abdominal approach for early-stage endometrial carcinoma: a review of the literature
J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol.
(2006)
Cited by (331)
Role of minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic malignancies
2023, DiSaia and Creasman Clinical Gynecologic OncologyInterventional nuclear medicine's contribution to molecularly targeted precision surgery
2022, Revista Espanola de Medicina Nuclear e Imagen MolecularComparison of Oncological and Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Laparoscopic Modified Radical Hysterectomy and Laparotomy for Endometrial Cancer
2024, Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology