Robotic paraaortic lymphadenectomy in oncogynecology. Double side docking of daVinci S system increases the success rates of high paraaortic lymph node dissection in endometrial cancer
Authors:
R. Marek 1; P. Dzvinčuk 1; J. Hambálek 1; M. Maděrka 1
; V. Jančeková 1; V. Kolářová 1; K. Langová 2
; R. Pilka 1
Authors‘ workplace:
Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika FN a LF UP, Olomouc, přednosta prof. MUDr. R. Pilka, Ph. D.
1; Ústav lékařské biofyziky FN a LF UP, Olomouc, přednostka prof. MUDr. H. Kolářová, CSc.
2
Published in:
Ceska Gynekol 2019; 84(1): 4-17
Category:
Overview
Objective: To present an overview of minimally invasive approaches to suprapelvic lymphadenectomy and compare two different methods of staging robotic transperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomies in patients with early stages of endometrial cancer.
Design: Retrospective study and literature review.
Setting: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, University Hospital Olomouc.
Methods: In this retrospective study we enrolled 70 patients with early stages of endometrial cancer undergoing staging robotic surgery at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Olomouc from January 2016 to March 2018. Primary systematic pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy was suggested in all patients. In 39 out of 70 patients single docking was used for robotic staging surgery, whereas in 28 patients the procedure was done using double side docking approach. Number of patients with total and infra-renal suprapelvic lymphadenectomy, number of para-aortic lymphonodes retrieved and the rate of lymphadenectomy complications were compared.
Results: Robotic surgery was performed in 67 (96%) out of 70 patients. In three cases (0,4%) laparoscopy was converted to laparotomy. Single side docking was used in 39 cases (58%), whereas in 28 patients (42%) double side docking was used. Paraaortic lymhadenectomy was performed in 45 cases (67%). In 16 patients (24%) the upper limit of the left renal wein was reached. Upper limit of paraaortic lymphadenectomy was above inferior mesenteric artery but did not reach left renal vein in 19 cases (28%). Inferior mesenteric represented upper limit of paraaortic lymphadenectomy in 10 patients (15%). Number of paraaortic lymphonodes retrived (4,9 ± 3,3 vs 3,7 ± 4,9, p = 0,028) as well as number of paraaortic lymphadenectomies with upper limit at the left renal vein (p < 0,0001) was higher in double side docking cases. Complication rates were low in both groups and the differences were not significant.
Conclusion: Number of lymphonodes retrieved as well as the number of paraaortic lymphadenectomy cases with upper limit at the left renal vein was higher in double side docking group. Operating time, complication and conversion rates were low without differences between both groups.
Keywords:
paraaortic lymphadenectomy – endometrial cancer – robotic surgery – transperitoneal
Sources
1 . ACOG practice bulletin, clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists, number 65, August 2005: management of endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol, 2005, 106(2), p. 413–425.
2. Andou, M. Extraperitoneal endoscopic total retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: no bowel surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2016, 23(4), p. 475.
3. Bats, AS., Mimouni, M., Bensaid, C., et al. Robotic extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy in gynecological cancers: feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of isolated and combined procedures. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2014, 24(8), p. 1486–1492.
4. 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(4), p. 360.e1–9.
5. Brudie, LA., Backes, FJ., Ahmad, S., et al. Analysis of disease recurrence and survival for women with uterine malignancies undergoing robotic surgery. Gynecol Oncol, 2013, 128(2), p. 309–315.
6. Burke, WM., Orr, J., Leitao, M., et al. Endometrial cancer: a review and current management strategies: part I. Gynecol Oncol, 2014, 134(2), p. 385–392.
7. Colombo, N., Creutzberg, C., Amant, F., et al. ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Consensus Conference on Endometrial Cancer: Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2016, 26(1), p. 2–30.
8. Colombo, N., Preti, E., Landoni, F., et al. Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol, 2013, 24, Suppl. 6, p. vi33–38.
9. Creasman, WT., Odicino, F., Maisonneuve, P., et al. Carcinoma of the corpus uteri. FIGO 26th Annual Report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2006, 95, Suppl 1, p. S105–143.
10. Cunningham, MJ., Dunton, CJ., Corn, B., et al. Extended-field radiation therapy in early-stage cervical carcinoma: survival and complications. Gynecol Oncol, 1991, 43(1), p. 51–54.
11. Dargent, D., Ansquer, Y., Mathevet, P. Technical development and results of left extraperitoneal laparoscopic paraaortic lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2000, 77(1), p. 87–92.
12. Dauwen, H., Van Calster, B., Deroose, CM., et al. PET/CT in the staging of patients with a pelvic mass suspicious for ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2013, 131(3), p. 694–700.
13. Diaz-Feijoo, B., Gil-Ibanez, B., Perez-Benavente, A., et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopy for extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol, 2014, 132(1), p. 98–101.
14. Ekdahl, L., Salehi, S., Falconer, H. Improving double docking for robot-assisted para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer staging: technique and surgical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2016, 23(5), p. 818–824.
15. 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(2), p. 226–229.
16. Fleming, ND., Ramirez, PT. Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Curr Opin Oncol, 2012, 24(5), p. 547–553.
17. Fornalik, H., Zore, T., Fornalik, N., et al. Can Teamwork and High-Volume Experience Overcome Challenges of Lymphadenectomy in Morbidly Obese Patients (body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or greater) with Endometrial Cancer? A cohort study of robotics and laparotomy and review of literature. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2018, 28(5), p. 959–966.
18. Franke, O., Narducci, F., Chereau-Ewald, E., et al. Role of a double docking to improve lymph node dissection: when robotically assisted laparoscopy for para-aortic lymphadenectomy is associated to a pelvic procedure. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2015, 25(2), p. 331–336.
19. Gehrig, PA., Cantrell, LA., Shafer, A., et al. What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol, 2008, 111(1), p. 41–45.
20. Geppert, B., Persson, J. Robotic infrarenal paraaortic and pelvic nodal staging for endometrial cancer: feasibility and lymphatic complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2015, 94(10), p. 1074–1081.
21. Gold, MA., Tian, C., Whitney, CW., et al. Surgical versus radiographic determination of para-aortic lymph node metastases before chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer, 2008, 112(9), p. 1954–1963.
22. Gorostidi, M., Larreategui, J., Bernal, T., et al. Robotic retroperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy at Donostia University Hospital. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2014, 21(3), p. 480–485.
23. Gucer, F., Misirlioglu, S., Ceydeli, N., et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic transperitoneal infrarenal lymphadenectomy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer by single docking: Do we need a backup procedure? J Robot Surg, 2018, 12(1), p. 49–58.
24. Herd, J., Fowler, JM., Shenson, D., et al. Laparoscopic para-aortic lymph node sampling: development of a technique. Gynecol Oncol, 1992, 44(3), p. 271–276.
25. Hirahatake, K., Hareyama, H., Sakuragi, N., et al. A clinical and pathologic study on para-aortic lymph node metastasis in endometrial carcinoma. J Surg Oncol, 1997, 65(2), p. 82–87.
26. Hoskins, WJ., Perez, C., Young, R, et al. (eds). Gynecologic tumors. In De Vita, VT. Cancer principles and practice of oncology, 1989, p. 1099–1161.
27. Hudry, D., Ahmad, S., Zanagnolo, V., et al. Robotically assisted para-aortic lymphadenectomy: surgical results: a cohort study of 487 patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2015, 25(3), p. 504–511.
28. Hynninen, J., Auranen, A., Carpen, O., et al. FDG PET/CT in staging of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: frequency of supradiaphragmatic lymph node metastasis challenges the traditional pattern of disease spread. Gynecol Oncol, 2012, 126(1), p. 64–68.
29. Chan, JK., Gardner, AB., Taylor, K., et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open surgery in morbidly obese endometrial cancer patients – a comparative analysis of total charges and complication rates. Gynecol Oncol, 2015, 139(2), p. 300–305.
30. Cherif Akladios, P., Ronzino, V., Schrot-Sanyan, S., et al. Comparison between transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic malignancies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2015, 22(2), p. 268–274.
31. Childers, JM., Hatch, K., Surwit, EA. The role of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in the management of cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol, 1992, 47(1), p. 38–43.
32. Choi, HJ., Roh, JW., Seo, SS., et al. Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma: a prospective study. Cancer, 2006, 106(4), p. 914–922.
33. Chu, KK., Chang, SD., Chen, FP., et al. Laparoscopic surgical staging in cervical cancer–preliminary experience among Chinese. Gynecol Oncol, 1997, 64(1), p. 49–53.
34. Jacob, KA., Zanagnolo, V., Magrina, JF., et al. Robotic transperitoneal infrarenal aortic lymphadenectomy for gynecologic malignancy: a left lateral approach. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2011, 21(8), p. 733–736.
35. James, JA., Rakowski, JA., Jeppson, CN., et al. Robotic transperitoneal infra-renal aortic lymphadenectomy in early-stage endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2015, 136(2), p. 285–292.
36. Joint, A., Reporting, CfCSa.E.R. Manual for surgical staging of cancer, 1977, p. 1–173.
37. Kim, TJ., Yoon, G., Lee, YY., et al. Robotic high para-aortic lymph node dissection with high port placement using same port for pelvic surgery in gynecologic cancer patients. J Gynecol Oncol, 2015, 26(3), p. 222–226.
38. 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(9), p. 2430–2435.
39. LaPolla, JP., SJ., Gaddis, O., Morrow, CP. The influence of surgical staging on the evaluation and treatment of patients with cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol, 1986(24), p. 194–206.
40. Leiserowitz, G. Survival of endometrial cancer patients after laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy or total abdominal hysterectomy: analysis of risk factors. Gynecol Oncol, 2007, p. 104.
41. Lim, PC, Kang, E., Park, DH. Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2010, 17(6), p. 739–748.
42. Maenpaa, MM., Nieminen, K., Tomas, EI., et al. Robotic-assisted infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomy in gynecological cancers: technique and surgical outcomes. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2018, 28(5), p. 951–958.
43. Magrina, JF., Long, JB., Kho, RM., et al. Robotic transperitoneal infrarenal aortic lymphadenectomy: technique and results. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2010, 20(1), p. 184–187.
44. Magrina, JF., Mutone, NF., Weaver, AL., et al. Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy and vaginal or laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for endometrial cancer: morbidity and survival. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1999, 181(2), p. 376–381.
45. Malur, S., Possover, M., Michels, W., et al. Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal versus abdominal surgery in patients with endometrial cancer–a prospective randomized trial. Gynecol Oncol, 2001, 80(2), p. 239–244.
46. Mariani, A., Dowdy, SC., Cliby, WA., et al. Prospective assessment of lymphatic dissemination in endometrial cancer: a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Gynecol Oncol 2008, 109(1), p. 11–18.
47. Menderes, G., Azodi, M., Clark, L., et al. Impact of body mass index on surgical outcomes and analysis of disease recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer undergoing robotic-assisted staging. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2014, 24(6), p. 1118–1125.
48. Odunsi, KO., Lele, S., Ghamande, S., et al. The impact of pre-therapy extraperitoneal surgical staging on the evaluation and treatment of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol, 2001, 22(5), p. 325–330.
49. Pakish, J., Soliman, PT., Frumovitz, M., et al. A comparison of extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic or robotic para-aortic lymphadenectomy for staging of endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol, 2014, 132(2), p. 366–371.
50. Pereira, A., Magrina, JF., Rey, V., et al. Pelvic and aortic lymphnode metastasis in epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2007, 105(3), p. 604–608.
51. Ponce, J., Barahona, M., Pla, MJ., et al. Robotic transperitoneal infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomy with double docking: technique, learning curve, and perioperative outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2016, 23(4), p. 622–627.
52. Possover, MKN., Plaul, K., Khune-Heid, R., Schneider, A. Laparoscopic para-aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy: experience with 150 patients and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol, 1998, 71, p. 19–28.
53. Potish, RA., Downey, GO., Adcock, LL., et al. The role of surgical debulking in cancer of the uterine cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 1989, 17(5), p. 979–984.
54. Potish, RA., Twiggs, LB., Adcock, LL., et al. The utility and limitations of decision theory in the utilization of surgical staging and extended field radiotherapy in cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 1984, 39(9), p. 555–562.
55. Queiroz, MA., Kubik-Huch, RA., Hauser, N., et al. PET/MRI and PET/CT in advanced gynaecological tumours: initial experience and comparison. Eur Radiol, 2015, 25(8), p. 2222–2230.
56. Roh, JW., Seo, SS., Lee, S., et al. Role of positron emission tomography in pretreatment lymph node staging of uterine cervical cancer: a prospective surgicopathologic correlation study. Eur J Cancer, 2005, 41(14), p. 2086–2092.
57. Salehi, S., Avall-Lundqvist, E., Legerstam, B., et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopy versus laparotomy for infrarenal paraaortic lymphadenectomy in women with high-risk endometrial cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer, 2017, 79, p. 81–89.
58. Seamon, LG., Cohn, DE., Henretta, MS., et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: Robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol, 2009, 113(1), p. 36–41.
59. Soliman, PT., Frumovitz, M., Spannuth, W., et al. Lymphadenectomy during endometrial cancer staging: practice patterns among gynecologic oncologists. Gynecol Oncol, 2010, 119(2), p. 291–294.
60. Supe, AN., Kulkarni, GV., Supe, PA. Ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg, 2010, 6(2), p. 31–36.
61. Todo, Y., Kato, H., Kaneuchi, M., et al. Survival effect of para-aortic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (SEPAL study): a retrospective cohort analysis. Lancet, 2010, 375(9721), p. 1165–1172.
62. Walker, JL., Piedmonte, MR., Spirtos, NM., et al. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol, 2009, 27(32), p. 5331–5336.
63. Wharton, JT., Jones, HW., 3rd, Day, TG., Jr., et al. Preirradiation celiotomy and extended field irradiation for invasive carcinoma of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol, 1977, 49(3), p. 333–338.
64. Wisner, KP., Gupta, S., Ahmad, S., et al. Indications and techniques for robotic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic oncology. J Surg Oncol, 2015, 112(7), p. 782–789.
65. Xiong, W., Cao, LL., Jiang, LP., et al. [Clinical comparative analysis of comprehensive laparoscopic and laparotomic staging of early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi, 2017, 52(2), p. 103–109.
Labels
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicineArticle was published in
Czech Gynaecology
2019 Issue 1
Most read in this issue
- Endometriosis in pregnancy – diagnostics and management
- Diagnostics and modern trends in therapy of postpartum depression
- Cervical cerclage – history and contemporary use
- Uterine microbiome and endometrial receptivity