Robotic Versus Open Radical Hysterectomy in Women With Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Single-institution Experience of Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes

Study Objective To compare the surgical and oncologic outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) versus laparotomy in women with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Setting Oncology referral center. Design A retrospective comparative observational study was performed in 30 patients with LACC Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d'Obstétrique stage IB2-IIB who underwent RRH after NACT between February 2008 and December 2014. This group was compared with a cohort of 44 patients with similar characteristics who underwent abdominal radical hysterectomy after NACT (Canadian Task Force classification II2). Patients Patients with LACC FIGO stage IB2-IIB. Interventions A retrospective comparative observational study. Measurements and Main Results The mean (standard deviation [SD]) operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group (307.8 minutes [40.2] vs 233.7 minutes [61.9], p ≤ .001). On the contrary, the mean (SD) estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the robotic group (111.0 mL [69.6] vs 286.9 mL [159.1], p ≤ .001), and length of stay was significantly shorter (4.1 [2.4] days vs 5.8 days [3.3], p = .015). The incidence of intraoperative and early and late complications was not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups. The mean (SD) follow-up of patients was 35.6 months (28.4) and 43.7 months (23.2) in the open and robotic groups, respectively (p = .137). The disease recurrence rate (27.2% vs 20%) was similar between the 2 groups; sites and types of recurrences were also similar. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for median progression-free survival and median overall survival were not statistically different comparing cohorts by surgery type. Conclusions RRH after NACT in women with LACC is associated with similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes to open procedure. These results require further investigation to establish a more robust conclusion.