This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
PURPOSE: To compare perioperative outcomes between robotic single-site surgical technique and conventional laparoendoscopic single-site surgical technique. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study involving 67 patients who received robotic single-site surgery or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for the treatment of stage IB1 cervical squamous carcinoma. The robotic single-site radical hysterectomy technique combined with pelvic lymph node dissections were performed in 32 patients while the laparoendoscopic single-site radical hysterectomy technique combined with pelvic lymph node dissections were performed in 35 patients. RESULTS: The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with stage IB1 cervical squamous carcinoma. The perioperative outcomes were mean age (51.63±8.32 years in the lymph node dissection (RSS group) and 53.14±8.14 years in the lymph node dissection (LESS group), p=0.453); BMIs (23.76±2.72 in the RSS group and 23.46±2.28 in the LESS group, p=0.629); shorter operative times (223.56±15.43 min in the RSS group and 248.61±20.89 min in the LESS group, p<0.01) and less estimated blood loss (217.25±16.77 mL in the RSS group and 294.74±24.00 mL in the LESS group, p<0.01). None of the study participants exhibited postoperative pain. There were no statistically significant differences in the length of hospital stay (p=0.865), perioperative complications (p=0.602), duration of closure and removal of catheter (p=0.518) as well as in pathological diagnoses between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Robotic single-site surgery can be used in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer as it exhibits acceptable operative times and perioperative outcomes. This surgical technique is feasible and safe.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gao et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: