Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 16;62(1):111–120. doi: 10.4111/icu.20200176

Table 4. Comparison of outcomes between case series, review of literature of robotic pelvic exenteration and open pelvic exenteration.

Variable Case series Literature review of robotic exenteration Platt et al. [9] Quyn et al. [16] PelvEx Collaborative
Sample size 7 7 1,016 104 1,184
Age (y) 60 (46–79) 57 (41–78) 59 (50–65) 62 (27–86) 63 (IQR, 56–69)
Sex (male/female) 7/0 7/0 640/376 54/50 752/432
Body mass index (kg/m2) 25.1 (18.1–31.6) 22.9 (18–27) - - 25 (22–28)
ASA score (1/2/3/4) 3/3/1/0 2/0/0/0 - 17/54/17/0 -
Charlson Comorbidity index 3 (3–6) 2 (2–3) - - -
Operative time (min) 485±157 522±133 444 (266–726) 438 (132–930) 509±201
Blood loss (mL) 375 (0–1,000) 600 (300–800) 2,114 (540–7,550) 1,500 (100–13,000) -
Length of stay 9 (6–34) 8 (7–28) 18 (9–49) 19 (7–97) 15 (IQR, 10–46)
Clavien-Dindo Classification Grade (I–II/III–IV) 7/0 1/1 380/280 -/8 -/380
Return to theatre (%) 0.0 0.0 14.6 5.0 7.2
30 day mortality (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.0–8.7) 1.0 1.8
R0 resection (%) 85.7 85 74 86 55.4
Adjuvant therapy (yes/no) 4/3 3/7 - - -
Neoadjuvant therapy (yes/no) 5/2 4/7 - - 614/515
5 year survival (%) 85.7 100.0 32.0 * 22.5

Values are presented as number only, median (range), mean±standard deviation, percent only, or median only.

ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; IQR, interquartile range; -, not available.

*Denotes missing data.