|
Surgery | N | RRH versus ARH | RRH versus LRH | Control | Surg-eon | OR time (min.) | EBL (mL) | Hospital stay (days) | Lymph node count | Conversions | Bld Tx | Intraoperative complications | Postoperative complications |
|
Radical hysterectomy | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Magrina [92] 2003–2006 Mayo ClinicPhoenix, AZ Matched: age, BMI, malignancy, stage, type of radical | 27 versus 35 27 versus 31 | ✓ | ✓ | HC + CC HC + CC Pro-Spective | NR | 190 versus 167 190 versus 220 | 133 versus 444 133 versus 208 | 1.7 versus 3.6 1.7 versus 2.4 | 26 versus 28 26 versus 26 | None | RRH: 4% ARH:9% LRH: 0% | RRH: 0 ARH: 6% Bleeding (2) LRH: 3% Rectotomy (1) | RRH: Major 7% Pleural effusions (1), pneumothorax (1) Minor: 15% urinary retention (1), UTI (2), bleeding (1) ARH: Major 9% Pna (1), wound seroma (1), ileus (1)Minor: 9% urinary retention (1), emesis (2) LRH: Major 6% Fever (1), port-site infection (1) Minor: 10% corneal abrasion (1), urinary retention (1), lymphatic drainage at cuff (1) |
|
Boggess et al. [81] 2005–2007 UNC Matched: stage | 51 versus 49 | ✓ | | HC Pro-Spective | NR | 211 versus 248 | 97 versus 417 | 1 versus 3.2 | 34 versus 23 | None | RRH: 0% ARH:8% | NR | RRH: 8% Cuff abscess (1), lymphedema (1), readmission (1), cuff dehiscence (1) ARH: 16% Femoral n. injury (2), ileus (1), lymphocyst (1), bleeding (1), cuff dehiscence (1), wound infection (2) |
|
Geisler [93] 2007-2008 Toledo, OH | 30 versus 30 | ✓ | | HC Pro-spective | NR | 154 versus 166 | 165 versus 323 | 1.4 versus 2.8 | 25 versus 26 | none | NR | NR | Urinary retention POD no. 8 RRH: 27% ARH: 3% 90 days post-op: ND |
|
Estape [94] 2006–2008 South Miami Hospital Matched: stage and histology | 32 versus 14 32 versus 17 | ✓ | ✓ | HC HC Pro-spective | DS | 144 versus 114 144 versus 132 | 130 versus 621 130 versus 210 | 2.6 versus 4.0 2.6 versus 2.3 | 32 versus 26 32 versus 19 | NR | RRH: 3% ARH: 36% LRH: 0% | RRH: 3% Cystotomy (1) ARH: 0% LRH: 12% Cystotomy (2) | RRH: 19% Atelectasis/COPD (1), fever (1), ileus (1), wound cellulitis (1), pelvic abscess (1), cuff dehiscence (1)ARH: 29% Pna (1), SVT (1), ureter dilation (1), urine retention (1) LRH: 24% Fever (1), hypo-K (1), ileus (1), fistula (1) |
|
Maggioni et al. [95] 2007–2009 Milan, Italy | 40 versus 40 | ✓ | | HC Pro-spective | DS | 272 versus 200 | 78 versus 221 | 3.7 versus 5.0 | 20 versus 26 | NR | RRH: 8% ARH: 23% | RRH: 5% Nerve injury (1), intestinal injury (1) ARH: 10% Cystotomy (1) ureteral injury (2), intestinal injury (2) | RRH: 30% Subcutaneous emphysema (4), fever (3), infection (1), nerve palsy (2), pleural effusion (1), reintervention (1) ARH: 25% Fever (12), infection (3), ileus (1), nerve palsy (3), pleural effusion (2), reintervention (1) |
|
Nam et al. [96] 2006–2009 Seoul, Korea Matched: Age, BMI, stage, histology, prior surgeries, radical type | 32 versus 32 | ✓ | | HC Pro-Spective | DS | 218 versus 209 | 220 versus 532 | 11.6 versus 16.9 | 20 versus 24 | NR | RRH: 3% ARH: 64% | RRH: 3% Rectotomy ARH: 0% | RRH: 84% Infection (2), fever (7), pleural effusion (2), bladder dysfunction (5), ileus (4), diarrhea (1), wound dehiscence (1), neuropathy (1), lymphedema (1), readmit (2), ureteral stricture (1)ARH: 59% Infection (1), fever (9), pleural effusion (1), bladder dysfunction (3), ileus (2), wound dehiscence (3) |
|
Sert and Albert [97] 2005–2009 Norway | 35 versus 26 35 versus 7 | ✓ | ✓ | HC HC Pro-specitve | NR | 263 versus 163 263 versus 364 | 82 versus 595 82 versus 164 | 3.8 versus 9.2 3.8 versus 8.4 | 20 versus 26 20 versus 15 | NR | NR | RRH: 9% Cystotomy (3)ARH: 0 LRH: 14% Cystotomy (1) | RRH: 11%Lymphocyst (2), lymphedema (1), DVT (1) ARH: 46%Lymphocyst (1), lymphedema (2), UTI (7), pna (2), LRH: 71%Lymphocyst (3), UTI (1), compartment syndrome (1) |
|
Tinelli et al. [98] 2003–2010 Avellino, Italy & Mount Sinai, New York, NY | 23 versus 76 | | ✓ | CC Pro-spective | DS | 255 versus 323 | 95 versus 157 | 4 versus 3 | Pelvic: 27 versus 25 Aortic:12 versus 10 | none | 0 | RRH: 9% Cystotomy (2) LRH: 3% Cystotomy (2) | RRH: 9% Lymphorrhea (2), fever (2) LRH: 21% Fistula (1), fever (6), lymphorrhea (9) |
|
Ovarian cancer debulking | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Magrina et al. [99] 2004–2008 Mayo Clinic Phoenix, AZ Matched: age, BMI, type debulking | 25 versus 119 25 versus 27 | ✓ | ✓ | HC + CC Pro-spective HC + CC | NR | 315 versus 261 315 versus 254 | 164 versus 1307 164 versus 267 | 4.2 versus 9.4 4.2 versus 3.2 | 25 versus 23 25 versus 21 | NR | NR | DRS: 12% Cystotomy (2), vessel injury (1) OS: 13% Bleeding (6), GI injury (6), cystotomy (2), ureteral injury (2) LSC: 11% Enterotomy (1), bleeding (1), vessel injury (1) | DRS: 24% Cuf dehiscence (2), pleural effusion (1) bleeding (1), ileus (1), trocar-site infection (1), pulmonary edema (1) OS: 34% Wound complications (10), GI (11), CV (7), pulmonary (7), UTI(2), abscess (2), hematoma (1), anastamotic leak → death (1) LSC: 4% Pelvic abscess (1) |
|