Da Vinci Robotic Surgery in Gynaecological Oncology: a Critical Interim
Appraisal
Bartoš P.1, Struppl D.2, Trhlík M.1, Czudek S.3, Škrovina M.3, Adamčík L.3, Soumarová R.4
1Gynekologicko-porodnické oddělení, Onkologické centrum J. G. Mendela, Nový Jičín, vedoucí pracoviště prim. MUDr. P. Bartoš, Ph.D, M.MED 2Gynekologické oddělení Nemocnice Na Homolce, Praha 3Chirurgické oddělení, Onkologické centrum J. G. Mendela, Nový Jičín 6Radioterapie, a.s., Onkologické centrum J. G. Mendela, Nový Jičín |
|
Summary:
Objective: Benefit evaluation of robot-assisted surgery in gynecological oncology. The parameters
observed were feasibility, safety, overal surgery length and economic aspects.
Design: Prospective study analysing our experience in 10 patients operated due to gynaecological
malignancy, adnexal tumors or planned for the procedure used as a part of extensive oncological surgery.
Settings: Department of Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Surgery Na Homolce Hospital, Prague.
Methods: The surgeries were performed with Da Vinci robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, inc., USA)
including surgeon’s console with stereoscopic viewer with hand and foot controls. The second component
of the system was In Site vision system with 3D 12 mm endoscope. The third part comprised of 3
telerobotic arms with Endowrist instruments. From 2/2006 to 9/2006 10 patients were operated upon. 2
patients with early invasive cervical cancer, 2 patients with cervical cancer in situ (CIS), 3 patients with
complex ovarian tumors, 2 patients with symptomatic atypical endometrial glandular hyperplasia and 1
patient underwent necessary gynecological surgery as a part of oncological treatment of breast cancer.
The range of surgery included Total robotic hysterectomy, Robot-assisted vaginal hysterectomy with
adnexectomy and frozen section, Robot-assisted radical vaginal trachelectomy with pelvic
lymphadenectomy and unilateral adnexectomy with frozen section. The average age of patients was 52
years (range 32 – 58 years). 30% of patients had a previous laparotomy in their history.
Results: All procedures were finished with robot-assisted system. In 2 patients a temporary conversion to
laparoscopy was made. In 3 patients a technical fault of the robotic system was noticed. This was
corrected during the surgery. The overal surgery time was significantly longer (29 hours for robotassisted
versus 12 hours for laparoscopy). This represented operation time increase of 59 % in
comparison to identical laparoscopic procedures in our department in 2006. This was caused by lengthy
assembly and disassembly time of the robotic system. No patients experienced any peroperative or
postoperative comlications. The costs in our setting were approximately 10times higher in comparison to
laparoscopy.
Conclusion: Our preliminary experience shows that Robot-assisted surgery is comparable to the
standard laparoscopic procedure in terms of feasibility and outcome, but costs are considerably higher
owing to longer operating time and the use of more expensive instruments. A major limitation is the lack
of a large operation field. The enormous costs and the lack of appropriate instruments can be a major
problem in the further expansion of robotic surgery. The use of robotic system in gynecologic oncologic
surgery and in abdominal surgery in general offers, at this stage, no relevant benefit and thus is not
justified. Clinical data demonstrating improved outcomes are so far lacking for robotic surgical
application within the abdomen.
Key words:
Da Vinci robotic surgery, oncology, laparoscopy
|