Evidence Hub

Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: Long-term results of a randomized controlled trial

Elina Kivekäs, Synnöve Staff, H. Huhtala, J. Mäenpää, Kari Nieminen, E. Tomás, M. Mäenpää

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2024

97 participants · 26 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) has become a widely and increasingly used modality of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer (EC). Due to its technical advantages, RALS offers benefits, such as a lower rate of conversions compared to conventional laparoscopy (CLS). Yet, data on long-term oncological outcomes after RALS is scarce and based on retrospective cohort studies only.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and long-term surgical complications in EC patients randomly assigned to RALS or CLS.

STUDY DESIGN

This randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics of Tampere University Hospital, Finland. Between 2010 and 2013, 101 patients with low-grade EC scheduled for minimally invasive surgery were randomized preoperatively 1:1 either to RALS or CLS. All patients underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and pelvic lymphadenectomy. A total of 97 patients (49 in the RALS group and 48 in the CLS group) were followed up for a minimum of 10 years. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazard models. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to analyze risk factors for trocar site hernia.

RESULTS

In the multivariable regression analysis, OS was favorable in the RALS group (HR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.15-0.99, p=.047) compared to the CLS group. There was no…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 97 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free