Research Article| Volume 42, ISSUE 4, P513-522, April 2016

Download started.


Robot-assisted versus open radical hysterectomy: A multi-institutional experience for early-stage cervical cancer

Published:January 20, 2016DOI:



      To compare perioperative and clinico-pathological outcomes of patients with early-stage cervical cancer who underwent robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and open radical hysterectomy (ORH).


      This retrospective multi-center study abstracted demographic, clinico-pathological and perioperative outcomes data from medical records of 491 cervical cancer patients treated with RRH (n = 259) ORH (n = 232) between 2005 and 2011 at two American and one Norwegian University Cancer Centres.


      Mean estimated blood loss (EBL) and transfusion rates were less for RRH than for ORH (97 vs. 49 mL, p < 0.001, and 3% vs. 7%, p = 0.018, respectively). Mean length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in RRH versus ORH (1.8 vs. 5.1 days, p < 0.001). Mean operative time was longer for RRH than ORH (220 vs. 156 min, p < 0.001). Although overall complications were similar (p = 0.49), intra-operative complications were less common in the RRH group than ORH (4% vs. 10%, p = 0.004). In multivariate regression analyses longer operative time, less EBL and intra-operative complications, shorter LOS, and more pre-operative cone were significantly associated with RRH versus ORH. Recurrence and death rates were not statistically different for the two groups at a mean follow-up time of 39 months (p = 1.00 and p = 0.48, respectively).


      RRH had improved clinical outcomes compared to ORH in the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in terms of EBL, intra-operative complications, transfusion rates, LOS, and pre-operative cone. Disease recurrence and survival were comparable for the two procedures.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to European Journal of Surgical Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Ferlay J.
        • Soerjomataram I.
        • Dikshit R.
        • et al.
        Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.
        Int J Cancer. 2015; 136 (E359–E386)
        • Wertheim E.
        Zur frage der radicaloperation beim uteruskrebs.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1900; 61: 627-668
        • Meigs J.V.
        Carcinoma of the cervix: the wertheim operation.
        Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1944; 78: 195
        • Meigs J.V.
        Radical hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissections; a report of 100 patients operated on five or more years ago.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1951; 62: 854-870
        • Canis M.
        • Mage G.
        • Wattiez A.
        • Pouly J.L.
        • Manhes H.
        • Bruhat M.A.
        Does endoscopic surgery have a role in radical surgery of cancer of the cervix uteri?.
        J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1990; 19: 921
        • Nezhat C.R.
        • Burrell M.O.
        • Nezhat F.R.
        • Benigno B.B.
        • Welander C.E.
        Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166: 864-865
        • Spirtos N.M.
        • Eisenkop S.M.
        • Schlaerth J.B.
        • Ballon S.C.
        Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type III) with aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with stage I cervical cancer: surgical morbidity and intermediate follow-up.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 340-348
        • Abu-Rustum N.R.
        • Gemignani M.L.
        • Moore K.
        • et al.
        Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy using the argon-beam coagulator: pilot data and comparison to laparotomy.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 91: 402-409
        • Querleu D.
        Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 168: 1643-1645
        • Gil-Moreno A.
        • Puig O.
        • Perez-Benavente M.A.
        • et al.
        Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type II-III) with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early invasive cervical cancer.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005; 12: 113-120
        • Nezhat F.
        • Mahdavi A.
        • Nagarsheth N.P.
        Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy using harmonic shears.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006; 13: 20-25
        • Ramirez P.T.
        • Slomovitz B.M.
        • Soliman P.T.
        • Coleman R.L.
        • Levenback C.
        Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2006; 102: 252-255
        • Frumovitz M.
        • dos Reis R.
        • Sun C.C.
        • et al.
        Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110: 96-102
        • Kruijdenberg C.B.
        • van den Einden L.C.
        • Hendriks J.C.
        • Zusterzeel P.L.
        • Bekkers R.L.
        Robot-assisted versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer, a review.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2011; 120: 334-339
        • Yim G.W.
        • Kim S.W.
        • Nam E.J.
        • Kim S.
        • Kim Y.T.
        Learning curve analysis of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: initial experience at a single institution.
        J Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 24: 303-312
        • Lim P.C.
        • Kang E.
        • Park do H.
        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: 739-748
      1. (
        • Administration FDA
        Gynecologic laparoscope and accessories.
        • Sert B.M.
        • Abeler V.M.
        Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (Piver type III) with pelvic node dissection–case report.
        Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006; 27: 531-533
        • Magrina J.F.
        • Kho R.
        • Magtibay P.M.
        Robotic radical hysterectomy: technical aspects.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 113: 28-31
        • Boggess J.F.
        • Gehrig P.A.
        • Cantrell L.
        • et al.
        A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 357.e1-357.e7
        • Kim Y.T.
        • Kim S.W.
        • Hyung W.J.
        • Lee S.J.
        • Nam E.J.
        • Lee W.J.
        Robotic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical carcinoma: a pilot study.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 108: 312-316
        • Ko E.M.
        • Muto M.G.
        • Berkowitz R.S.
        • Feltmate C.M.
        Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 111: 425-430
        • Tinelli R.
        • Malzoni M.
        • Cosentino F.
        • et al.
        Robotics versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: a multicenter study.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18: 2622-2628
        • 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?.
        Int J Med Robot. 2007; 3: 224-228
        • Geisler J.P.
        • Orr C.J.
        • Khurshid N.
        • Phibbs G.
        • Manahan K.J.
        Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared with open radical hysterectomy.
        Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010; 20: 438-442
        • Maggioni A.
        • Minig L.
        • Zanagnolo V.
        • et al.
        Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 115: 60-64
        • Nam E.J.
        • Kim S.W.
        • Kim S.
        • et al.
        A case-control study of robotic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy using 3 robotic arms compared with abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer.
        Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010; 20: 1284-1289
        • Schreuder H.W.
        • Zweemer R.P.
        • van Baal W.M.
        • van de Lande J.
        • Dijkstra J.C.
        • Verheijen R.H.
        From open radical hysterectomy to robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: aspects of a single institution learning curve.
        Gynecol Surg. 2010; 7: 253-258
        • Strasberg S.M.
        • Linehan D.C.
        • Hawkins W.G.
        The accordion severity grading system of surgical complications.
        Ann Surg. 2009; 250: 177-186
        • Pikaart D.P.
        • Holloway R.W.
        • Ahmad S.
        • et al.
        Clinical-pathologic and morbidity analyses of Types 2 and 3 abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2007; 107: 205-210
        • Sedlis A.
        • Bundy B.N.
        • Rotman M.Z.
        • Lentz S.S.
        • Muderspach L.I.
        • Zaino R.J.
        A randomized trial of pelvic radiation therapy versus no further therapy in selected patients with stage IB carcinoma of the cervix after radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study.
        Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 73: 177-183
        • Rotman M.
        • Sedlis A.
        • Piedmonte M.R.
        • et al.
        A phase III randomized trial of postoperative pelvic irradiation in Stage IB cervical carcinoma with poor prognostic features: follow-up of a gynecologic oncology group study.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 65: 169-176
        • Cantrell L.A.
        • Mendivil A.
        • Gehrig P.A.
        • Boggess J.F.
        Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 117: 260-265
        • Estape R.
        • Lambrou N.
        • Diaz R.
        • Estape E.
        • Dunkin N.
        • Rivera A.
        A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 113: 357-361
        • Jones N.
        • Fleming N.D.
        • Nick A.M.
        • et al.
        Conversion from robotic surgery to laparotomy: a case-control study evaluating risk factors for conversion.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 134: 238-242
        • Wright J.D.
        • Herzog T.J.
        • Neugut A.I.
        • et al.
        Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2012; 127: 11-17
        • Seamon L.G.
        • Fowler J.M.
        • Richardson D.L.
        • et al.
        A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 114: 162-167
        • Reich H.
        Laparoscopic hysterectomy.
        J Gynecol Surg. 1989; 5: 213-216
        • Reza M.
        Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery.
        Br J Surg. 2010; 97: 1772-1783
        • Hoogendam J.P.
        • Verheijen R.H.
        • Wegner I.
        • Zweemer R.P.
        Oncological outcome and long-term complications in robot-assisted radical surgery for early stage cervical cancer: an observational cohort study.
        BJOG. 2014; 121: 1538-1545
        • Puntambekar S.P.
        • Kathya N.
        • Mallireddy C.
        • et al.
        Indian experience of robotics in gynecology.
        J Minim Access Surg. 2014; 10: 80-83
        • Gortchev G.
        Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy-perioperative and survival outcomes in patients with cervical cancer compared to laparoscopic and open radical surgery.
        Gynecol Surg. 2012; 9: 81-88
        • Shazly S.A.
        • Murad M.H.
        • Dowdy S.C.
        • Gostout B.S.
        • Famuyide A.O.
        Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 138: 457-471
        • Halliday D.
        • Lau S.
        • Vaknin Z.
        • et al.
        Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison of outcomes and cost.
        J Robot Surg. 2010; 4: 211-216
        • Tandogdu Z.
        • Vale L.
        • Fraser C.
        • Ramsay C.
        A systematic review of economic evaluations of the use of robotic assisted laparoscopy in surgery compared with open or laparoscopic surgery.
        Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015; 13: 457-467
        • Iavazzo C.
        • Papadopoulou E.K.
        • Gkegkes I.D.
        Cost assessment of robotics in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014; 40: 2125-2134
        • Obermair A.
        • Gebski V.
        • Frumovitz M.
        • et al.
        A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008; 15: 584-588