机器人手术与传统开腹术治疗早期宫颈癌的效果分析

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-6899.2023.05.008

目的

比较机器人手术和开腹手术治疗ⅠA1-ⅡA2期宫颈癌患者的手术效果和肿瘤学结局。

方法

回顾性分析2016年至2018年南昌大学第一附属医院妇产科收治的164例ⅠA1-ⅡA2期宫颈癌患者的临床资料，所有患者术前均未接受放疗或化疗；其中116例接受机器人手术(机器人组)根治性子宫切除术及盆腔淋巴结清扫，48例接受开腹手术(开腹手术组)。比较两手术组的手术效果和肿瘤学结局。

结果

两组患者在手术时间、手术并发症、盆腔淋巴结切除数、手术切缘阳性、宫旁受累和淋巴结转移方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在手术失血量、术后住院时间和肠功能恢复方面，机器人组的结果分别优于开腹手术组(P<0.05)。机器人组68例患者术后接受辅助治疗，开腹手术组19例患者接受辅助治疗(P<0.05)。机器人组的随访时间与开腹手术组无明显差异(52.32±11.18 vs. 56.17±15.05月，P>0.05)。两组复发率和死亡率差异均无统计学意义(P＝0.95，P＝0.68)。

结论

与开腹手术相比，机器人手术结合术后辅助治疗对早期宫颈癌是可行和安全的，具有良好的手术效果和同等的肿瘤学结局。

关键词: 宫颈癌, 根治性子宫切除术, 机器人手术, 开腹手术

Objective

To compare surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery and laparotomy for the treatment of stage IA1 to IIA2 cervical cancer.

Methods

A retrospective study were performed in a university-affiliated tertiary hospital between 2016 and 2018. One hundred and sixty-four patients with stage IA1-IIA2 cervical carcinoma without preoperative brachytherapy or chemotherapy were included, of whom 116 underwent robotic and 48 underwent laparotomic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection performed. The surgical and oncological parameters of two surgical groups were compared.

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups in operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, pelvic lymph node, positive surgical margins, parametrial involvement and lymph node metastasis respectively (P>0.05). In terms of blood loss, postoperative hospital stay and bowel function recovery, the outcomes of robotic group were more favorable than those of laparotomy group respectively (P< 0.05). Sixty-eight patients in robotic group accepted adjuvant therapy postoperation while 19 patients in laparotomy group accepted therapy (P< 0.05). No significant difference was found in follow-up time between the two groups (52.32 ± 11.18 vs. 56.17 ± 15.05 months, P>0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in recurrence and death rate (P> 0.05).

Conclusion

With adjuvant therapy postoperation, robotic surgery for early cervical cancer seems to be feasible and safe with favorable short-term surgical and equivalent oncological outcomes.

Key words: Cervical cancer, Radical hysterectomy, Robotic surgery, Laparotomy

图1 机器人手术的穿刺孔位置注：通过12 mm trocar在距脐左侧2 cm的位置引入30度机器人腹腔镜头。两个机器人trocar(8 mm)位于腹腔镜端口两侧8 cm处，第四个位于右侧髂嵴的上方。

图2 机器人根治性子宫切除术步骤注：A.子宫圆韧带切除术(左)；B.子宫圆韧带切除术(右)；C.盆腔淋巴结清扫术(左)；D.盆腔淋巴结清扫术(右)；E.子宫动脉游离和离断(左)；F.子宫动脉游离和离断(右)；G.输尿管隧道游离(左)；H.输尿管隧道游离(右)；I.子宫主韧带和子宫骶韧带切除术(左)；J.子宫主韧带和子宫骶韧带切除术(右)；K.部分阴道切除术；L.阴道缝合。

表1 机器人手术和开腹手术组患者的肿瘤特征[n(%)]

	机器人组(n＝116)	开腹组(n＝48)	P值
年龄(岁)	49.20 ± 8.48	50.60 ± 9.20	0.37
FIGO分期			<0.001
ⅠA1	16 (13.80)	1 (2.10)
ⅠA2	6 (5.20)	2 (4.20)
ⅠB1	49 (42.20)	39 (81.30)
ⅠB2	10 (8.60)	5 (10.40)
ⅡA1	32 (27.60)	1 (2.10)
ⅡA2	3 (2.60)	0 (0.00)
组织学			0.88
鳞状细胞癌	106 (91.40)	45 (93.80)
腺癌	8 (6.90)	2 (4.20)
其他	2 (1.70)	1 (2.10)
肿瘤分化程度			0.89
Ⅰ	32 (27.60)	15 (31.30)
Ⅱ-Ⅲ	77 (66.40)	30 (62.50)
未定义	7 (6.00)	3 (6.30)
肿瘤大小			0.88
≤4 cm	103 (88.80)	43 (89.60)
>4 cm	13 (11.20)	5 (10.40)

表1 机器人手术和开腹手术组患者的肿瘤特征[n(%)]

	机器人组(n＝116)	开腹组(n＝48)	P值
年龄(岁)	49.20 ± 8.48	50.60 ± 9.20	0.37
FIGO分期			<0.001
ⅠA1	16 (13.80)	1 (2.10)
ⅠA2	6 (5.20)	2 (4.20)
ⅠB1	49 (42.20)	39 (81.30)
ⅠB2	10 (8.60)	5 (10.40)
ⅡA1	32 (27.60)	1 (2.10)
ⅡA2	3 (2.60)	0 (0.00)
组织学			0.88
鳞状细胞癌	106 (91.40)	45 (93.80)
腺癌	8 (6.90)	2 (4.20)
其他	2 (1.70)	1 (2.10)
肿瘤分化程度			0.89
Ⅰ	32 (27.60)	15 (31.30)
Ⅱ-Ⅲ	77 (66.40)	30 (62.50)
未定义	7 (6.00)	3 (6.30)
肿瘤大小			0.88
≤4 cm	103 (88.80)	43 (89.60)
>4 cm	13 (11.20)	5 (10.40)

表2 两组患者的手术结果[n(%)]

	机器人组(n＝116)	开腹组(n＝48)	P值
手术时间(min)	193.20±31.59	194.60±33.72	0.80
双侧输卵管卵巢切除术	68(58.60)	30(62.50)	0.64
手术失血量(ml)	142.20±80.23	356.30±266.50	<0.001
术后住院天数(d)	7.50±1.49	8.60±3.71	0.04
肠功能恢复(d)	2.10±0.40	3.00±0.44	<0.001
盆腔淋巴结(个)	21.20±9.94	22.50±8.87	0.43
手术切缘阳性	3(2.60)	2(4.20)	0.97
LVSI阳性	26(22.40)	1(2.10)	0.001
宫旁组织受累	2(1.70)	1(2.10)	>0.99
淋巴结转移	16(13.80)	9(18.80)	0.42
中转开腹手术	0(0.00)	－	－

表2 两组患者的手术结果[n(%)]

	机器人组(n＝116)	开腹组(n＝48)	P值
手术时间(min)	193.20±31.59	194.60±33.72	0.80
双侧输卵管卵巢切除术	68(58.60)	30(62.50)	0.64
手术失血量(ml)	142.20±80.23	356.30±266.50	<0.001
术后住院天数(d)	7.50±1.49	8.60±3.71	0.04
肠功能恢复(d)	2.10±0.40	3.00±0.44	<0.001
盆腔淋巴结(个)	21.20±9.94	22.50±8.87	0.43
手术切缘阳性	3(2.60)	2(4.20)	0.97
LVSI阳性	26(22.40)	1(2.10)	0.001
宫旁组织受累	2(1.70)	1(2.10)	>0.99
淋巴结转移	16(13.80)	9(18.80)	0.42
中转开腹手术	0(0.00)	－	－

表3 两组患者的肿瘤学结果[n(%)]

	机器人组(n＝116)	开腹组(n＝48)	P值
术后辅助治疗	68(58.60)	19(39.60)	0.03
随访时间(月)	52.32±11.18	56.17±15.05	0.07
复发	10(8.60)	5(10.40)	0.95
死亡	6(5.20)	4(8.30)	0.68

表3 两组患者的肿瘤学结果[n(%)]

	机器人组(n＝116)	开腹组(n＝48)	P值
术后辅助治疗	68(58.60)	19(39.60)	0.03
随访时间(月)	52.32±11.18	56.17±15.05	0.07
复发	10(8.60)	5(10.40)	0.95
死亡	6(5.20)	4(8.30)	0.68

1	Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2018, 68(6)：394-424.
2	Medlin EE, Kushner DM, Barroilhet L. Robotic surgery for early stage cervical cancer: evolution and current trends[J]. J Surg Oncol, 2015, 112(7)：772-781.
3	Sert BM, Boggess JF, Ahmad S, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical hysterectomy: A multi-institutional experience for early-stage cervical cancer[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2016, 42(4)：513-522.
4	Wallin E, Flöter Rådestad A, Falconer H. Introduction of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: impact on complications, costs and oncologic outcome[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2017, 96(5)：536-542.
5	Kim TH, Choi CH, Choi JK, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients: a matched-case comparative study[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2014, 24(8)：1466-1473.
6	Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 379(20)：1895-1904.
7	Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2008, 9(3)：297-303.
8	Sert B, Abeler V. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical carcinoma patients, comparing results with total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy cases. The future is now？[J]. Int J Med Robot, 2007, 3(3)：224-228.
9	Kim YT, Kim SW, Jung YW. Robotic surgery in gynecologic field[J]. Yonsei Med J, 2008, 49(6)：886-890.
10	Wisner KPA, Ahmad S, Holloway RW. Indications and techniques for robotic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy with sentinel lymph node mapping in gynecologic oncology[J]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 2017, 45：83-93.
11	Gallotta V, Conte C, Federico A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: A case matched control study[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2018, 44(6)：754-759.
12	Shazly SA, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2015, 138(2)：457-471.
13	Han L, Yan P, Yao L, et al. Safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer in China[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2019, 300(1)：153-160.
14	Ind TEJ, Marshall C, Kasius J, et al. Introducing robotic radical hysterectomy for stage 1bi cervical cancer-A prospective evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in a single UK institution[J]. Int J Med Robot, 2019, 15(1)：e1970.
15	Shah CA, Beck T, Liao JB, et al. Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer[J]. J Gynecol Oncol, 2017, 28(6)：e82.
16	Jin YM, Liu SS, Chen J, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(3)：e0193033.
17	Schreuder HW, Zweemer RP, van Baal WM, et al. From open radical hysterectomy to robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: aspects of a single institution learning curve[J]. Gynecol Surg, 2010, 7(3)：253-258.
18	Zhang SS, Ding T, Cui ZH, et al. Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: A separate meta-analysis of high-quality studies[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2019, 98(4)：e14171.
19	Cantrell LA, Mendivil A, Gehrig PA, et al. Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2010, 117(2)：260-265.
20	Corrado G, Vizza E, Legge F, et al. Comparison of different surgical approaches for stage IB1 cervical cancer patients: a multi-institution study and a review of the literature[J]. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2018, 28(5)：1020-1028.
21	Martin-Hirsch P, Wood N, Whitham NL, et al. Survival of women with early-stage cervical cancer in the UK treated with minimal access and open surgery[J]. BJOG, 2019, 126(8)：956-959.
22	National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: cervical cancer, 2018 version 1. ( URL
23	Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 379(20)：1905-1914.
24	Siesto G, Finco A, Portuesi RAV, et al. Survival outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: A 9-year study[J]. Int J Med Robot, 2019, 15(4)：e2003.
25	Alfonzo E, Wallin E, Ekdahl L, et al. No survival difference between robotic and open radical hysterectomy for women with early-stage cervical cancer: results from a nationwide population-based cohort study[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2019, 116：169-177.
26	Doo DW, Kirkland CT, Griswold LH, et al. Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: Results from a single high volume institution[J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2019, 153(2)：242-247.
27	Gil-Moreno A, Carbonell-Socias M, Salicrú S, et al. Radical hysterectomy: efficacy and safety in the dawn of minimally invasive techniques[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2019, 26(3)：492-500.

[1]	刘伦, 王云鹭, 李锡勇, 韩鹏飞, 张鹏, 李晓东. 机器人辅助膝关节单髁置换术的研究进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 715-721.
[2]	马瑞, 杨佩, 田润, 王春生, 王坤正. 机器人辅助髓芯减压术治疗股骨头坏死的效果[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 123-128.
[3]	罗佳, 赵晶晶, 曹小珍, 钟玲, 范林军, 曾令娟. 单侧腋窝双侧乳晕入路机器人甲状腺术后局部加压预防皮下隧道出血的对照研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 603-606.
[4]	孟令展, 朱震宇. 达芬奇机器人辅助肝中叶切除术[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 373-373.
[5]	阳敏, 张婷, 钟玲, 刘军兰, 杜俊泽, 崔翔, 张晔, 范林军. 传统腔镜与达芬奇机器人手术治疗低危甲状腺癌的对比研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 176-179.
[6]	谢秋波, 周宇, 宋健, 涂忠, 李想, 汪仁昊, 伍依依, 潘铁军. 全息影像在机器人辅助前列腺癌根治术中保留膀胱颈的应用[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 209-213.
[7]	贾卓奇, 周维茹, 张勇, 张广健, 付军科. 达·芬奇机器人与腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补术的对比研究[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 410-414.
[8]	许喜乐, 徐敏. 达芬奇机器人辅助肺段切除术治疗ⅠA期NSCLC的临床疗效分析[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(05): 658-660.
[9]	王楠, 孟元光, 马冰, 张鹏, 杨雯, 顾成磊, 闫志风, 翟青枝, 李明霞, 李震, 王铭洋, 李立安. 机器人手术在中央型复发宫颈癌的应用[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(05): 278-282.
[10]	顾成磊, 徐佳, 张妮娜, 赵路阳, 范文生. 机器人手术在困难子宫切除术中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(05): 283-287.
[11]	刘亚芬, 赵曌, 何南南, 李悦, 许鹏琳, 纪妹. 妇科机器人手术术中并发症防治[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(05): 288-292.
[12]	李骞, 成凯, 李传富, 齐硕, 丁成明, 贺军, 陈国栋. ERAS背景下机器人与腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术的对比分析[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(02): 73-78.
[13]	王楠, 李立安, 范文生, 马鑫, 刘洪一, 赵之明, 孟元光. 达芬奇机器人盆腔廓清术在妇科肿瘤患者中的应用[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(02): 91-95.
[14]	王兆海, 刘兵, 王子政, 汪洋, 赵国栋. 流域学说指导下的机器人肝脏肿瘤靶域切除技术实践[J]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(01): 33-37.
[15]	朱伟权, 叶善平, 唐和春, 刘东宁, 鞠后琼, 仲崇晗, 黄智翔, 李太原. 机器人辅助直肠癌NOSES术后细菌学及肿瘤学结果的前瞻性研究[J]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2023, 12(04): 282-287.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparotomy in the management of early cervical cancer

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparotomy in the management of early cervical cancer