[en] [en] OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) in patients with gynecologic cancers during the learning phases of robotic surgery programs and to compare results of extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approaches of PAL.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a retrospective multicentric study of patients who underwent robotically assisted laparoscopic PAL (N = 487). Eleven European centers and 1 US center participated in the study. Abstracted data included age, body mass index, indication, type of surgical approach (transperitoneal or extraperitoneal), associated surgical procedures, operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node count, hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications. Para-aortic lymphadenectomy was performed by an extraperitoneal approach in 58 cases (12%) and transperitoneal in 429 cases (88%).
RESULTS: The mean (SD) para-aortic lymph node count was 12.6 (8.1), operative time was 217 (85) minutes, estimated blood loss was 105 (110) mL, and LOS was 2.8 (3.2) days. Four (0.8%) conversions to open and 2 (0.4%) conversions to laparoscopy were described. There were 32 lymphocysts (6.6%), 3 deep venous thromboses (0.6%), and 10 transfusions (2.1%). For transperitoneal approach, the average number of lymph nodes removed was higher in isolated PAL group than the hysterectomy combined group (report node counts 95% confidence interval, -7.29 to -3.52, P = 1.5 × 10⁻⁶). For isolated PAL, the LOS was shorter in the extraperitoneal group than in the transperitoneal group (report data 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.35, P = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted PAL seems safe and feasible. More lymph nodes were removed during an isolated transperitoneal PAL dissection compared with a combined procedure with hysterectomy. Extraperitoneal approach seems attractive relative to transperitoneal dissection, but the superiority of one or the other way is not demonstrated by our study.
Disciplines :
Surgery
Author, co-author :
Hudry, Delphine; *Georges-François Leclerc Cancer Center, Dijon, France, †Florida Hospital Cancer Institute, Orlando, FL, ‡European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, §Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France, ∥St Pierre University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium, ¶UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, #Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL, Idibell, Spain, **Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany, ††European Hospital, Paris, France, ‡‡University Hospital, Bordeaux, France, §§Claudius Regaud Institute, Toulouse, France, ∥∥Citadelle Hospital, Liège, Belgium, and ¶¶Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France
Ahmad, Sarfraz; Florida Hospital Cancer Institute, Orlando, United States
Zanagnolo, Vanna; European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy
Narducci, Fabrice; Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
Fastrez, Maxime; St Pierre University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium ; UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Ponce, Jordi; Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL, Idibell, Spain
Tucher, Elisabeth; Charité University Medicine, Berlin, Germany
Lécuru, Fabrice; European Hospital, Paris, France
Conri, Vanessa; University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
Leguevaque, Pierre; Claudius Regaud Institute, Toulouse, France
Goffin, Frédéric ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service de gynécologie-obstétrique (CHR) ; Citadelle Hospital, Liège, Belgium
Holloway, Robert W; Florida Hospital Cancer Institute, Orlando, United States
Lambaudie, Eric; Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France
Lowery WJ, Leath CA, Robinson RD. Robotic surgery applications in the management of gynecologic malignancies. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:481-487.
Holloway RW, Ahmad S. Robotic-assisted surgery in the management of endometrial cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2012;38:1-8.
Lambaudie E, Narducci F, Leblanc E, et al. Robotically assisted laparoscopy for paraaortic lymphadenectomy: technical description and results of an initial experience. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2430-2435.
Narducci F, Lambaudie E, Houvenaeghel G, et al. Early experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopy for extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy up to the left renal vein. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;115:172-174.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-213.
Vergote I, Pouseele B, Van Gorp T, et al. Robotic retroperitoneal lower para-aortic lymphadenectomy in cervical carcinoma: first report on the technique used in 5 patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87:783-787.
Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, 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.e1-360.e9.
Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS, et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:36-41.
Fastrez M, Vandromme J, George P, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the management of advanced cervical carcinoma. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;147:226-229.
Magrina JF, Kho R, Montero RP, et al. Robotic extraperitoneal aortic lymphadenectomy: development of a technique. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:32-35.
Escobar PF, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, et al. Comparison of single-port laparoscopy, standard laparoscopy, and robotic surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:1583-1588.
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.
Fader AN, Seamon LG, Escobar PF, et al. Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy in women with high grade endometrial cancer: a multi-site study performed at high volume cancer centers. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126:180-185.
Gouy S, Morice P, Narducci F, et al. Nodal-staging surgery for locally advanced cervical cancer in the era of PET. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:e212-e220.
Backes FJ, Brudie LA, Farrell MR, et al. Short- and long-term morbidity and outcomes after robotic surgery for comprehensive endometrial cancer staging. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125:546-551.
Dargent D, Ansquer Y, Mathevet P. Technical development and results of left extraperitoneal laparoscopic paraaortic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;77:87-92.
Schlaerth JB, Spirtos NM, Carson LF, et al. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy followed by immediate laparotomy in women with cervical cancer: a gynecologic oncology group study. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;85:81-88.
Vergote I, Amant F, Berteloot P, et al. Laparoscopic lower para-aortic staging lymphadenectomy in stage IB2, II, and III cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2002;12:22-26.
Sonoda Y, Leblanc E, Querleu D, et al. Prospective evaluation of surgical staging of advanced cervical cancer via a laparoscopic extraperitoneal approach. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91:326-331.
Burnett AF, O'Meara AT, Bahador A, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic lymph node staging: the University of Southern California experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95:189-192.
Mehra G, Weekes ARL, Jacobs IJ, et al. Laparoscopic extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy: a study of its applications in gynecological malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;93:189-193.
Cartron G, Leblanc E, Ferron G, et al. Complications of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in gynaecologic oncology. A series of 1102 procedures in 915 patients. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2005;33:304-314.
Nagao S, Fujiwara K, Kagawa R, et al. Feasibility of extraperitoneal laparoscopic para-aortic and common iliac lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:732-735.
Tillmanns T, Lowe MP. Safety, feasibility, and costs of outpatient laparoscopic extraperitoneal aortic nodal dissection for locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:370-374.
Fichez A, Lamblin G, Mathevet P. Left extraperitoneal laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy: morbidity and learning curve of the technique [in French]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2007;35:990-906.
Leblanc E, Narducci F, Frumovitz M, et al. Therapeutic value of pretherapeutic extraperitoneal laparoscopic staging of locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:304-311.
Gil-Moreno A, Diáz-Feijoo B, Pérez-Benavente A, et al. Impact of extraperitoneal lymphadenectomy on treatment and survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;110:S33-S35.
Dowdy SC, Aletti G, Cliby WA, et al. Extra-peritoneal laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy - a prospective cohort study of 293 patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:418-424.
Estrade J-P, Lazard A, Gurriet B, et al. Laparoscopic ways of para-aortic lymphadenectomy [in French]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2010;38:135-141.
Ramirez PT, Jhingran A, Macapinlac HA, et al. Laparoscopic extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy in locally advanced cervical cancer: a prospective correlation of surgical findings with positron emission tomography/computed tomography findings. Cancer. 2011 1;117:1928-1934.
Uzan C, Souadka A, Gouy S, et al. Analysis of morbidity and clinical implications of laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy in a continuous series of 98 patients with advanced-stage cervical cancer and negative PET-CT imaging in the para-aortic area. Oncologist. 2011;16:1021-1027.
Gil-Moreno A, Magrina JF, Pérez-Benavente A, et al. Location of aortic node metastases in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125:312-314.
Benito V, Lubrano A, Arencibia O, et al. Laparoscopic extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the staging of locally advanced cervical cancer: is it a feasible procedure at a peripheral center? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:332-336.
Gouy S, Kane A, Uzan C, et al. Single-port laparoscopy and extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy: about fourteen consecutive cases. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123:329-332.
Lambaudie E, Cannone F, Bannier M, et al. Laparoscopic extraperitoneal aortic dissection: does single-port surgery offer the same possibilities as conventional laparoscopy? Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1920-1923.
Gouy S, Uzan C, Kane A, et al. A new single-port approach to perform a transperitoneal step and an extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy with a single incision. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214:e25-e30.
Brockbank E, Kokka F, Bryant A, et al. Pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment in locally advanced cervical cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;4:CD008217.
Occelli B, Narducci F, Lanvin D, et al. De novo adhesions with extraperitoneal endosurgical para-aortic lymphadenectomy versus transperitoneal laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy: a randomized experimental study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:529-533.
Lai C-H, Huang K-G, Hong J-H, et al. Randomized trial of surgical staging (extraperitoneal or laparoscopic) versus clinical staging in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;89:160-167.
Lambaudie E, Houvenaeghel G, Walz J, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:2743-2747.
