Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine logoLink to Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
. 2022 Sep 22;2022:9384134. doi: 10.1155/2022/9384134

Prognosis and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Surgery on Patients with Endometrial Carcinoma: Systematic Evaluation and Meta-Analysis

Jiong Ma 1, Chunxia Zhou 1, Jinyan Chen 1, Xuejun Chen 1,✉
PMCID: PMC9553337  PMID: 36238475

Abstract

Objective

The prognosis and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LPS) and open surgery or robotic surgery (RS) on endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients were compared.

Methods

Data as of May 2021 were retrieved from databases like PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The study involved randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, or case-control studies for comparing the effects of LPS and open surgery or robotic surgery (RS) on EC treatment. The primary outcomes included duration of operation, blood loss, length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes included 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate/disease-free survival (DFS) rate and 3-year overall survival (OS) rate.

Results

A total of 24 studies were involved, and all of them were cohort studies except 1 RCT and 1 case-control study. There was no significant difference in duration of operation between LPS and open surgery (MD = −0.06, 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.25) or RS (MD = −0.15, 95% CI: -1.27 to 0.96). In comparison with the open surgery, LPS remarkably reduced blood loss (MD = −0.43, 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.29), LOS (MD = −0.71, 95% CI: -0.92 to -0.50), and the complication occurrence rate (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.95). However, LPS and RS saw no difference in blood loss (MD = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.77 to 0.79). Besides, in comparison with RS, LPS prominently shortened the LOS (MD = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.40) but increased the complication occurrence rate (RR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.57 to 1.92). In contrast to open surgery or RS, LPS saw no difference in occurrence rate (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.01; RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.53), 3-year PFS/DFS (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.09; RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.96), and 3-year OS (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.04; RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.60).

Conclusion

In sum, LPS was better than open surgery, which manifested in the aspects of less blood loss, shorter LOS, and fewer complications. LPS, therefore, was the most suitable option for EC patients. Nevertheless, LPS had no advantage over RS, and sufficient prospective RCTs are needed to further confirm its strengths.

1. Introduction

Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is the most commonly diagnosed gynecologic malignant tumor, especially in some developed countries [1], whose 5-year survival rate was 34.7% (445805 cases) [2]. The risk factors of EC include early menarche, delay menopause, diabetes, polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), metabolic syndrome, current treatments with tamoxifen, and obesity [3–5]. With the increase of risk factors such as aging of population and obesity, the morbidity of EC will continue to rise. Most EC patients who are diagnosed in the early stages (Federation Internationale of Gynecologie and Obstetrigue (FIGO) stage I or II) have better prognoses [6].

Surgeries remain the major treatment for early EC, which mainly include vaginal surgery, laparotomy (LT), or open surgery, laparoscopic surgery (LPS), and robotic surgery (RS). Clinical practice guideline and multiple clinical trials indicate that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is recommended as the preferred surgical approach for EC patients [7, 8]. In the past, LT has always been the first choice for early EC patients. Since the first report of LPS on EC in 1993 [9], LPS, as a MIS, has become increasingly popular in the treatment of EC [10, 11]. In contrast to open surgery, LPS is characterized by less blood loss, less renascent adhesion and lower morbidity [12]. RS is a new MIS developed on the basis of LPS. Previous studies show that RS for EC treatment results in a shorter length of stay (LOS), less blood loss, lower conversion rate of open surgery, and lower occurrence rate of intraoperative damage to surrounding organs, compared to LPS [13, 14]. However, in contrast to LPS, RS prolongs operation and recovery time [15, 16]. Recently, a multicenter retrospective study compared the therapeutic efficacy of LPS and radical abdominal hysterectomy on early EC patients. The result indicated a decrease in the disease-free survival (DFS) of patients who underwent LPS [17]. However, a prospective study validated that LPS could dramatically improve the short- and long-term quality of life (QOL) of EC patients [18]. Hence, this study systematically evaluated the prognosis and efficacy of LPS.

Consequently, we conducted a meta-analysis to elucidate the prognosis and effect of LPS on EC by comparison with open surgery or RS from the perspective of perioperative results, postoperative complications, recurrence rate, and survival time. This effort will bring insight into the surgical treatment of EC patients.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature Retrieval

The study was performed in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [19]. All relevant literature included in the databases like PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were retrieved from the construction of the databases to May 2021. Keywords used for searching included “endometrial carcinoma,” “hysteroscopic surgery,” “minimally invasive surgery,” “laparoscopic surgery,” “robotic surgery,” and “open surgery.” The detailed strategy of literature retrieval was as follows: ((((Endometrial Neoplasm∗[MeSH Terms]) OR (Endometrial Carcinoma∗[MeSH Terms])) OR (Endometrial Cancer∗[MeSH Terms])) AND (((((Laparoscopy[Title/Abstract]) OR (Hysteroscope[Title/Abstract])) OR (Minimally invasive[Title/Abstract])) OR (Open[Title/Abstract])) OR (robotic[Title/Abstract]))) AND ((operation[Title/Abstract]) OR (surgery[Title/Abstract])).

2.2. Selection of Studies

Inclusion criteria of the literature were as follows: (1) patients diagnosed with EC; (2) comparison between effects of LPS and open surgery or RS on EC treatment; (3) at least one of the results such as duration of operation, blood loss, LOS, postoperative complications, recurrence rate, 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate/DFS rate, and 3-year overall survival (OS) rate was reported; and (4) study was designed as RCT, cohort study, or case-control study. The following were the exclusion criteria of the literature: (1) repeated publication, case series, case report, comments, meeting abstract, review, editorial, letter, and so on; (2) data were not sufficient to obtain the result of our study; (3) article replications; and (4) studies lack of efficacy-related data.

2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

The information obtained from the literature included the information of the authors, publication year, country, study design, the year the samples were collected, the number of samples, and intervening measures. Data of the patients included age, body mass index (BMI), FIGO stage, pathological grading, and outcome indicator. Primary outcomes included duration of operation, blood loss, LOS, and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes involved postoperative recurrence rate, 3-year PFS rate/DFS rate, and 3-year OS rate.

Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was employed to assess the quality of RCT which was graded as “low risk,” “high risk,” and “uncertain risk.” Besides, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized to evaluate the risk of publication bias in observational studies. Aggregate points of NOS were 9, and literature with the points greater than or equal to 6 was considered of good quality.

The search and selection of articles and the extraction and quality evaluation of data were independently finished by two investigators. Disputes were solved by the third investigator through consultation.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Meta-analysis was performed using the Stata 16.0 software. Continuous data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Mean difference (MD) was measured via continuous results, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the concrete therapeutic effect. If CI included 0, it denoted no statistical difference between two groups. Besides, two-category data were merged and analyzed utilizing relative risk (RR) and their 95% CI. If CI included 1, it indicated no statistical difference between two groups. I2 statistic was applied to assess the statistical heterogeneity of studies involved. A random effect model was used if p < 0.1 or I2 > 50%, suggesting a remarkable heterogeneity. Otherwise, a fixed effect model was used.

3. Results

3.1. Screening and Selection of Reports

A total of 1666 reports were retrieved based on the established searching strategies, among which 224 reports were excluded. Further, 1400 reports were excluded by scanning their title and abstract. After reading the full text of the remaining 42 reports, 7 reports of them reported unrelated data while 11 of them lacked sufficient data for obtaining the result of our study. Finally, 24 reports were selected for our study [13, 20–42]. The procedures of report screening are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flow chart about literature screening.

3.2. Characteristics of the Studies and Quality Evaluation

A total of 24 reports were involved in the study, in which 6814 patients underwent LPS and 5315 patients underwent open surgery. Besides, 6121 patients underwent RS. Except for 1 RCT and 1 case-control study, the other reports were cohort studies. All characteristics of reports involved and the results of quality assessment are displayed in Table 1. Papers with the points greater than or equal to 6 were of high quality.

Table 1.

Characteristics of literature involved.

Author Year Country Center Study design Year of sample collection FIGO stage Grade Age, mean (SD), y BMI, mean (SD), kg/m2 Sample size (n) Interventions NOS
Escobar et al. 2012 USA Multi Retrospective cohort study 2009.4-2010.9 I-II I-III 60.9 (12.1) 59.7 (9.2) 61.9 (11.4) 31.2 (6.7) 31.4 (6.6) 31.3 (32.0) 30 30 30 Laparoscopy Robotic Single-port laparoscopy 7
Wright et al. 2012 USA Multi Retrospective cohort study 2008.10-2010.3 1027 1437 Laparoscopy Robotic 8
Obermair et al. 2012 Australia, New Zealand Multi RCT 2005.10-2010.6 IA-IVB I-III 404 349 Laparoscopy Open
Goicoechea et al. 2013 Multi Retrospective cohort study 2003.1-2010.1 I-IV I-III 61 62 29.3 29.2 232 183 Laparoscopy Robotic 9
Bogani et al. 2014 Italy Single Retrospective cohort study 2002.5-2012.10 I-IV I-III 78 79 27 26.6 59 66 Laparoscopy Open 9
Bogani et al. 2014 Italy Single Retrospective cohort study 1992.1-2013.5 I-III I-III 83 82 84 25 (4.3) 25.4 (3.6) 28.1 (6.9) 22 25 16 Laparoscopy Open Vaginal surgery 8
Boosz et al. 2014 Single Retrospective cohort study 2002.1-2009.12 I-III 63.2 (11.0) 66.7 (11.3) 29.8 (7.1) 29.7 (8.2) 107 160 Laparoscopy Open 9
Chiou et al. 2014 China Single Retrospective cohort study 2005-2013 IA-IIIC 51.4 (14.2) 53.6 (11.1) 53.6 (11.3) 25.6 (5.6) 26.0 (5.2) 26.1 (5.7) 150 86 129 Laparoscopy Robotic Open 9
Park et al. 2015 USA Single Retrospective cohort study 2001.1-2012.7 IA-IVB I-III 60 60 30.4 30.7 586 350 Laparotomy Robotic 6
Corrado et al. 2015 Italy Single Retrospective cohort study 2010.8-2013.12 IA-IVB I-III 62 63 64 29 29 28 277 72 177 Laparoscopy Robotic Open 6
Stefano et al. 2015 Italy Multi Retrospective case-control study 2000.1-2013.3 IV 62.2 (11.5) 63.2 (11.3) 27 27 764 502 Laparoscopy Open 6
Ling-hui Chu et al. 2015 China Single Retrospective cohort study 2002.1-2012.6 I-III I-III 55.3 53.4 25 25.4 70 81 Laparoscopy Open 8
Barrie et al. 2016 USA Single Retrospective cohort study 2009.1-2014.1 0-IV 0-III 62 62 29.9 30.6 688 745 Laparoscopy Robotic 9
Monterossi et al. 2016 Italian Multi Retrospective cohort study 2000.5-2015.6 I-II I-III 67 69 27 27 141 142 Laparoscopy Open 9
Beck et al. 2017 USA Single Retrospective cohort study 2008-2013 61 (27-90) 63 (25-96) 63 (28-94) 400 1687 1625 Laparoscopy Robotic Open 8
Ruan et al. 2018 Singapore Single Retrospective cohort study 2008-2014 I I-III 53.0 (11.0) 55.6 (9.7) 28.1 ± 5.7 28.7 ± 6.9 145 229 Laparoscopy Open 8
Corrado et al. 2018 Italian Multi Retrospective cohort study 2010-2012 I-IV I-III 63.43 62.5 35.4 (5.8) 36.3 (6.2) 406 249 Laparoscopy Robotic 9
Deura et al. 2018 Japan Single Retrospective cohort study 2005-2016 I I-II 57 57 23.6 (15.9-48.8) 23.5 (18.0-44.6) 40 80 Laparoscopy Open 8
Jørgensen et al. 2018 Denmark Single Prospective cohort study 2005.1.1-2015.6.30 I-II I-III 67 (37-94) 67 (33-94) 68 (40-98) 178 (33.1) 361 (29.4) 245 (35.3) 569 1282 712 Laparoscopy Robotic Open 9
Vardar et al. 2018 Retrospective cohort study 2005.1-2016 I-IIII I-III 35 (12.2) 61 (11.8) 35.0 (7.4) 35.8 (7.4) 286 515 Laparoscopy Open 9
Ghazali et al. 2018 Malaysia Single Retrospective cohort study 2010.1-2014.12 55.62 (12.75) 57.79 (9.63) 32.57 (8.89) 29.24 (3.71) 26 14 Laparoscopy Open 8
Dieterich et al. 2019 Germany Single Retrospective cohort study 2005.1-2014.12 I-III I-III 64.00 (11.04) 66.48 (11.41) 32.49 (8.86) 33.71 (8.26) 108 242 Laparoscopy Open 9
Papadia et al. 2019 Swiss confederation Single Retrospective cohort study 2001.10-2015.11 III 65 (11) 63.2 (11.2) 26.6 (7.4) 26.5 (7.2) 51 15 Laparoscopy Open 9
Tanaka et al. 2020 Japan Single Retrospective cohort study 2004.1-2019.12 IA-IV I-III 55.3 (10.6) 56.0 (10.3) 23.4 (4.4) 24.4 (4.9) 226 252 Laparoscopy Open 8
Open in a new tab

3.3. Results of Meta-Analysis

3.3.1. Duration of Operation and Blood Loss

In respect of the operation time, 9 studies compared that in LPS and open surgery (I2 = 95.2%), and 2 studies compared that in LPS and RS (I2 = 98.0%). Due to huge heterogeneity, a random effect model was introduced for analysis. The outcome of meta-analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in duration of operation between LPS and open surgery (MD = −0.06, 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.25) or RS (MD = −0.15, 95% CI: -1.27 to 0.96) (Figures 2(a) and 2(b)).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot comparing duration of operation. (a) LPS vs. open surgery; (b) LPS vs. RS.

In respect of blood loss, 6 studies compared that in LPS and open surgery (I2 = 47.1%), and 2 studies compared that in LPS and RS (I2 = 96.0%). Based on the results of heterogeneity analysis, a fixed effect model and a random effect model were employed, respectively. The result of meta-analysis demonstrated that the blood loss of LPS was dramatically decreased in contrast to open surgery (MD = −0.43, 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.29), but it had no remarkable difference when compared with that of RS (MD = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.77 to 0.79) (Figures 3(a) and 3(b)).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot about the comparison on blood loss. (a) LPS vs. open surgery; (b) LPS vs. RS.

3.3.2. Postoperative LOS, Complications, and Recurrence Rate

In respect of LOS, 5 studies compared that in LPS and open surgery (I2 = 72.1%), and 2 studies compared that in LPS and RS (I2 = 0.0%). Based on the results of heterogeneity analysis, a random effect model and a fixed effect model were employed, respectively. It was exhibited in meta-analysis that the LOS of LPS was shorter than that of open surgery (MD = −0.71, 95% CI: -0.92 to -0.50) (Figure 4(a)). Meanwhile, the LOS of RS was shorter by comparison with that of LPS (Figure 4(b)).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot about comparison on LOS. (a) LPS vs. open surgery; (b) LPS vs. RS.

In respect of postoperative complications, 15 studies compared that in LPS and open surgery (I2 = 83.3%), and 8 studies compared that in LPS and RS (I2 = 76.6%). Due to huge heterogeneity, a random effect model was employed. As demonstrated in the result of meta-analysis, LPS resulted in a decrease in the occurrence rate of complications relative to open surgery (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.95) (Figure 5(a)) but an increase in that compared to RS (RR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.57 to 1.92) (Figure 5(b)).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Forest plot comparing complications. (a) LPS vs. open surgery; (b) LPS vs. RS.

In respect of recurrence rate, 7 studies compared that in LPS and open surgery (I2 = 0.0%), and 3 studies compared that in LPS and RS (I2 = 5.3%). Because of small heterogeneity, a fixed effect model was employed. According to the result of meta-analysis, there was no notable difference in recurrence rate between LPS and open surgery (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.01) or RS (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.53) (Figures 6(a) and 6(b)).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of comparison on recurrence rate. (a) LPS vs. open surgery; (b) LPS vs. RS.

3.3.3. The 3-Year PFS/DFS and OS

In respect of 3-year PFS/DFS, 2 studies compared that in LPS and open surgery (I2 = 0.0%), and 3 studies compared that in LPS and RS (I2 = 90.2%). Based on the heterogeneity analysis, a fixed effect model and a random effect model were employed, respectively. The outcome of meta-analysis indicated an insignificant difference in 3-year PFS/DFS between LPS and open surgery (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.09) or RS (RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.96) (Figures 7(a) and 7(b)).

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Forest plot about comparison on 3-year PFS/DFS. (a) LPS vs. open surgery; (b) LPS vs. RS.

In respect of 3-year OS, 3 studies compared that in LPS and open surgery (I2 = 0.0%), and 4 studies compared that in LPS and RS (I2 = 91.2%). Based on the results of heterogeneity analysis, a fixed effect model and a random effect model were employed, respectively. As shown in the result of meta-analysis, there was no prominent difference in 3-year OS between LPS and open surgery (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.04) or RS (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.60) (Figures 8(a) and 8(b)).

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Forest plot comparing 3-year OS. (a) LPS vs. open surgery; (b) LPS vs. RS.

4. Discussion

This study found that LPS did not improve the survival time of patients. A retrospective study compared the clinical effect of LPS and open surgery on the treatment of low risk EC patients (grade 1 or 2 EC and mesometrium invasion < 1/2). The result suggested that the 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and OS of LPS were similar to those of open surgery [43]. Besides, another study reported the 5-year survival rate of EC patients who underwent LPS, open surgery, or RS, suggesting that there was no significant difference in 5-year DFS and OS of patients [44]. In addition, a multicenter database study verified that the long-term prognosis of MIS on treatment of high-risk EC was no worse than that of LT [45]. The above results were in agreement with the outcome of our study, which indicated that LPS did not dramatically improve the 3-year PFS/DFS and OS of patients.

Generally, LPS takes longer time on operation [36]. However, our study manifested that there was no significant difference in duration of operation between LPS and open surgery or RS. Importantly, since the duration of operation would be subjected to the skill of the operator, we could not figure out which method was the most potential to reduce the duration of operation among these surgeries. Meanwhile, the blood loss of LPS was obviously lower than that of open surgery, but it had no remarkable difference in comparison with that of RS.

The LOS of LPS was notably shorter than that of open surgery and LPS also resulted in fewer postoperative complications. However, RS was overwhelmingly better than LPS in the aspect of duration of time and postoperative complications. This study suggested that no obvious difference in recurrence rate was found between LPS and open surgery or RS.

A previous meta-analysis has proved that uterine manipulator is irrelevant to an increase in occurrence rate of positive peritoneal cytology, lymphovascular space invasion, or recurrence in EC patients [46]. Our study only investigated conventional LPS. A recent meta-analysis involved 4 RCTs that compared the clinical effect of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) and conventional LPS on the treatment of EC patients, which suggested an insignificant difference between the two surgeries. Meanwhile, LESS only has advantage on reducing trauma [47]. Additionally, another meta-analysis that was similar to our study compared the differences between RS and LPS or open surgery. The analysis suggested that RS was characterized by less blood loss and blood transfusion, fewer postoperative complications, and less conversion to LT plus shorter LOS compared with the other two surgeries. However, RS took a longer time on operation in surgical staging of EC [48]. Interestingly, these results were consistent with the outcomes of our study. Moreover, we also analyzed the oncological outcome of EC patients.

This study presented some advantages. Firstly, our meta-analysis involved some recent clinical trials with a vast number of samples. Furthermore, we also analyzed the survival time of patients. But few samples were involved in the analysis, which was a limitation of our study.

Inevitably, there were limitations in this study. First of all, most of the studies involved in our study were retrospective cohort studies which are inherently subjected to the risk of selection bias. Secondly, the speculation about whether various risk factors affect the prognosis of EC patients who underwent LPS is needed to be further verified. In addition, Cusimano et al. [49] performed a meta-analysis on EC patients with obesity who underwent LPS or robotic hysterectomy. The result of the analysis revealed that LPS and robotic hysterectomy had similar incidence of perioperative complications. However, robotic hysterectomy may reduce conversions due to the positional intolerance of patients suffering from morbid obesity. Finally, because of the lack of related reports on 5-year survival time of patients, we only analyzed the 3-year PFS/DFS and OS of the patients.

In summary, our study revealed that LPS was a safe and effective treatment for EC patients, which was better than open surgery. Nevertheless, LPS was at a disadvantage in the comparison with RS on duration of operation and postoperative complications. In the future, more randomized trials with complete data are needed to verify our conclusion.

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by the Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Plan Project (2014KYA244) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China Youth Science Fund Project (81202064)

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article. The data and materials in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Authors' Contributions

Jiong Ma and Xuejun Chen wrote the main manuscript text, and Chunxia Zhou and Jinyan Chen prepared Figures 1–8. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Siegel R. L., Miller K. D., Fuchs H. E., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA: a Cancer Journal for Clinicians . 2021;71(1):7–33. doi: 10.3322/caac.21654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.GLOBOCAN, WHO. Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2018. 2018. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/24-Corpus-uteri-fact-sheet.pdf .
  • 3.Saed L., Varse F., Baradaran H. R., et al. The effect of diabetes on the risk of endometrial cancer: an updated a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer . 2019;19(1):p. 527. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5748-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shafiee M. N., Razak N., Ahmad M. F., Abd Aziz N., Adeeb N. A single centre experience of metabolic syndrome and endometrial carcinoma: 5 years review. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology . 2021;41(2):285–289. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2020.1819210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yela D. A., Ikejiri T. A., Machado C. R., Mutta D., Benetti-Pinto C. L. Tamoxifen use as a malignancy risk factor in postmenopausal women with endometrial polyps. Menopause . 2019;26(8):863–866. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Stubert J., Gerber B. Current issues in the diagnosis and treatment of endometrial carcinoma. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde . 2016;76(2):170–175. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1558230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Concin N., Creutzberg C. L., Vergote I., et al. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma. Virchows Archiv . 2021;478(2):153–190. doi: 10.1007/s00428-020-03007-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Salehi S., Brandberg Y., Åvall-Lundqvist E., et al. Long-term quality of life after comprehensive surgical staging of high-risk endometrial cancer - results from the RASHEC trial. Acta Oncologica . 2018;57(12):1671–1676. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1521987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Childers J. M., Brzechffa P. R., Hatch K. D., Surwit E. A. Laparoscopically assisted surgical staging (LASS) of endometrial cancer. Gynecologic Oncology . 1993;51(1):33–38. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1993.1242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Asher R., Obermair A., Janda M., Gebski V. Disease-free and survival outcomes for Total laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with total abdominal hysterectomy in early-stage endometrial carcinoma: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer . 2018;28(3):529–538. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Janda M., Gebski V., Davies L. C., et al. Effect of total laparoscopic hysterectomy vs Total abdominal hysterectomy on disease-free survival among women with stage I endometrial cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA . 2017;317(12):1224–1233. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.2068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Salehi S., Avall-Lundqvist E., Legerstam B., Carlson J. W., Falconer H. Robot-assisted laparoscopy versus laparotomy for infrarenal paraaortic lymphadenectomy in women with high-risk endometrial cancer: a randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Cancer . 2017;79:81–89. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.03.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Corrado G., Vizza E., Cela V., et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic hysterectomy in obese and extremely obese patients with endometrial cancer: A multi-institutional analysis. European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology . 2018;44:1935–1941. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.08.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lindfors A., Heshar H., Adok C., Sundfeldt K., Dahm-Kahler P. Long-term survival in obese patients after robotic or open surgery for endometrial cancer. Gynecologic Oncology . 2020;158(3):673–680. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Crane E. K., Brown J., Lehman A., Tait D. L., Naumann R. W. Perioperative recovery and narcotic use in laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for endometrial cancer. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology . 2021;28(11):1898–1902. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2021.04.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Narducci F., Bogart E., Hebert T., et al. Severe perioperative morbidity after robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology: results of the randomized ROBOGYN-1004 trial. Gynecologic Oncology . 2020;158(2):382–389. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rodriguez J., Rauh-Hain J. A., Saenz J., et al. Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: a multicenter analysis. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer . 2021;31(4):504–511. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-002086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ferguson S. E., Panzarella T., Lau S., et al. Prospective cohort study comparing quality of life and sexual health outcomes between women undergoing robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for endometrial cancer. Gynecologic Oncology . 2018;149(3):476–483. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.04.558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ . 2021;372, article n71 doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ko W. S., Tran T. T. D., Bhattacharya I., Ng K. W., Sun H., Chang-Hasnain C. Illumination angle insensitive single indium phosphide tapered nanopillar solar cell. Nano Letters . 2015;15(8):4961–4967. doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b00756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wright J. D., Burke W. M., Wilde E. T., et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology . 2012;30(8):783–791. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.7508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Obermair A., Janda M., Baker J., et al. Improved surgical safety after laparoscopic compared to open surgery for apparent early stage endometrial cancer: results from a randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Cancer . 2012;48(8):1147–1153. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cardenas-Goicoechea J., Shepherd A., Momeni M., et al. Survival analysis of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology . 2014;210(2):160.e1–160.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bogani G., Cromi A., Uccella S., et al. Laparoscopic staging in women older than 75 years with early-stage endometrial cancer: comparison with open surgical operation. Menopause . 2014;21(9):945–951. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000000202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bogani G., Cromi A., Uccella S., et al. Perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic, open abdominal, and vaginal surgery for endometrial cancer in patients aged 80 years or older. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer . 2014;24(5):894–900. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Boosz A., Haeberle L., Renner S. P., et al. Comparison of reoperation rates, perioperative outcomes in women with endometrial cancer when the standard of care shifts from open surgery to laparoscopy. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics . 2014;290(6):1215–1220. doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3347-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chiou H. Y., Chiu L. H., Chen C. H., Yen Y. K., Chang C. W., Liu W. M. Comparing robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer management: a cohort study. International Journal of Surgery . 2015;13:17–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Park H. K., Helenowski I. B., Berry E., Lurain J. R., Neubauer N. L. A comparison of survival and recurrence outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer undergoing robotic versus open surgery. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology . 2015;22(6):961–967. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.04.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Corrado G., Cutillo G., Pomati G., et al. Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in the management of endometrial cancer. European Journal of Surgical Oncology . 2015;41(8):1074–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2015.04.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Uccella S., Bonzini M., Palomba S., et al. Impact of obesity on surgical treatment for endometrial cancer: a multicenter study comparing laparoscopy vs. open surgery, with propensity-matched analysis. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology . 2016;23(1):53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chu L. H., Chang W. C., Sheu B. C. Comparison of the laparoscopic versus conventional open method for surgical staging of endometrial carcinoma. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology . 2016;55(2):188–192. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2016.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Barrie A., Freeman A. H., Lyon L., et al. Classification of postoperative complications in robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology . 2016;23(7):1181–1188. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.08.832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Monterossi G., Ghezzi F., Vizza E., et al. Minimally Invasive Approach in Type II Endometrial Cancer: Is It Wise and Safe. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology . 2017;24:438–445. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.12.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Beck T. L., Schiff M. A., Goff B. A., Urban R. R. Robotic, Laparoscopic, or Open Hysterectomy: Surgical Outcomes by Approach in Endometrial Cancer. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology . 2018;25:986–993. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ruan X. C., Wong W. L., Yeong H. Q., Lim Y. K. T. Comparison of outcomes following laparoscopic and open hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for early stage endometrial carcinoma. Singapore medical journal . 2018;59:366–369. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2018088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Deura I., Shimada M., Azuma Y., et al. Comparison of laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparotomy for surgical staging of patients with presumed low-risk endometrial cancer: The current state of Japan. Taiwanese journal of obstetrics & gynecology . 2019;58:99–104. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2018.11.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jørgensen S. L., Mogensen O., Wu C. S., Korsholm M., Lund K., Jensen P. T. Survival after a nationwide introduction of robotic surgery in women with early-stage endometrial cancer: a population-based prospective cohort study. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) . 2019;109:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.12.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Vardar M. A., Gulec U. K., Guzel A. B., Gumurdulu D., Khatib G., Seydaoglu G. Laparoscopic surgery for low, intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancer. Journal of gynecologic oncology . 2019;30(e24) doi: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ghazali W., Jamil S. A., Sharin I. A. Laparoscopic versus Laparotomy: Staging Surgery for Endometrial Cancer - Malaysia's Early Experience. Gynecology and minimally invasive therapy . 2019;8:25–29. doi: 10.4103/gmit.Gmit_25_18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dieterich M., Schröter V., Stubert J., Reimer T., Gerber B., Stachs A. Oncologic Outcome of Patients with (Low-Risk) Endometrial Carcinoma Undergoing Laparotomy versus Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Analysis. Oncology research and treatment . 2019;42:636–649. doi: 10.1159/000502757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Papadia A., Garbade A., Gasparri M. L., Wang J., Radan A. P. Mueller MD Minimally invasive surgery does not impair overall survival in stage IIIC endometrial cancer patients. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics . 2020;301:585–590. doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05393-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tanaka T., Ueda S., Miyamoto S., et al. Oncologic outcomes for patients with endometrial cancer who received minimally invasive surgery: a retrospective observational study. International journal of clinical oncology . 2020;25:1985–1994. doi: 10.1007/s10147-020-01744-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Togami S., Kawamura T., Yanazume S., Kamio M., Kobayashi H. Comparison of survival outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery in patients with low-risk endometrial cancer. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology . 2020;50(11):1261–1264. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Siesto G., Romano F., Ieda N. P., Vitobello D. Survival outcomes after surgical management of endometrial cancer: Analysis after the first 10-year experience of robotic surgery in a single center. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery . 2020;16(6):1–9. doi: 10.1002/rcs.2157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Koskas M., Jozwiak M., Fournier M., et al. Long-term oncological safety of minimally invasive surgery in high-risk endometrial cancer. European Journal of Cancer . 2016;65:185–191. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Meng Y., Liu Y., Lin S., et al. The effects of uterine manipulators in minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Surgical Oncology . 2020;46(7):1225–1232. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.03.213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Tuoheti Z., Han L., Mulati G. Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine . 2021;100(12, article e24908) doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wang J., Li X., Wu H., Zhang Y., Wang F. A Meta-Analysis of Robotic Surgery in Endometrial Cancer: Comparison with Laparoscopy and Laparotomy. Disease Markers . 2020;2020:10. doi: 10.1155/2020/2503753.2503753 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 49.Cusimano M. C., Simpson A. N., Dossa F., et al. Laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy in endometrial cancer patients with obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of conversions and complications. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology . 2019;221(5):410–428.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article. The data and materials in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES