. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Aug 30.

Published in final edited form as: Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;60(2):330–348. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000286

TABLE 1.

Selected Publications on Laparoscopy and Robotic Surgery in Cervical Cancer

References	No. Patients	Findings
Magrina et al²¹	27_RRH 31_LRH 35_ORH	First study to compare all 3 surgical approaches RRH and LRH lower EBL, LOS
Soliman et al²³	34_RRH 31_LRH 30_ORH	RRH and LRH lower EBL and LOS Lower conversion risk in RRH group but not statistically significant
Boggess et al²⁰	51_RRH 49_ORH	RRH lower EBL, OR time and LOS Complication rates 7.8% for RRH and 16.4% for ORH but difference not statistically significant
Nam et al¹³	263_LRH 263_ORH	LRH lower EBL, LOS, and postoperative complication rates No difference in 5 y recurrence-free survival
Hoogendam et al⁵	100_RRH	Overall 5 y progression-free and disease-specific survival and long-term complications all equivalent to published laparotomy data

EBL indicates estimated blood loss; LOS, length of stay; LRH, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy; OR, operating room; ORH, open radical hysterectomy; RRH, robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy.