Oncologic and Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer.

Abstract

In view of the recent controversy concerning the use of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy as primary treatment for early stage cervical cancer, this study compared the survival and perioperative outcomes in a cohort of patients who underwent radical hysterectomy either by laparotomy or by robotics. This retrospective study compared all consecutive patients with early stage cervical cancer since the beginning of the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at the Jewish General Hospital in 2003, who underwent robotic radical hysterectomy (n = 74) with a cohort of all consecutive patients from the immediate past who underwent open radical hysterectomy (n = 24) for early stage cervical cancer. All patients were treated at the Jewish General Hospital in Montréal (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2). The median follow-up time for the robotic group was 46 months. During that time, 7% and 17% of patients in the robotic group and the laparotomy group had disease recurrence, respectively (P = 0.12). Cox multivariate regression showed no statistically significant effect of surgical approach on overall survival (hazard ratio 1.50, P = 0.63) or on progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.29, P = 0.07). Patients in the robotic cohort had significantly shorter median hospital stays (1 day vs. 7 days, P<0.001), and their overall incidence of postoperative complications was lower (13% vs. 50%, P<0.001). Median estimated blood loss for robotics was also significantly lower (82 mL vs. 528 mL, P<0.001). Based on the data on a limited number of patients in a Canadian context, robotic radical hysterectomy did not lead to worse oncologic outcomes and was associated with improved short-term surgical outcomes. One might consider the evaluation of more personalized surgical decision making.