Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Staging for Early Ovarian Cancer: A Case Matched Control Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE:\r\n\r\nThis study aims to evaluate the feasibility, surgical outcome and oncological results observed after robotic staging compared to conventional laparoscopic staging for patients with early-stage ovarian cancer (EOC) patients.\r\nDESIGN:\r\n\r\nRetrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).\r\nSETTING:\r\n\r\nCatholic University of the Sacred Hearth, Rome, Italy.\r\nPATIENTS:\r\n\r\n96 patients underwent minimally invasive staging for presumed stage I ovarian cancer: 32 underwent robotic approach (Cases), and 64 underwent laparoscopic approach (Controls).\r\nMEASURE:\r\n\r\nments and Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two approaches with regard to final FIGO stage, histology and grade of tumors. In the whole series 15 patients (15.6%) were upstaged, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Median number of pelvic lymph nodes removed was 14 (range 3-42) and 11 (range 2-29) in the robotic and laparoscopic group (p value= 0.235), respectively. Median number of aortic lymph nodes removed was 11 (range 3-26) and 12 (range 1-39) in the robotic and laparoscopic group (p value= 0.263), respectively. Operative time was significantly shorter in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group (p value= 0.043), while the amount of estimated blood loss was similar (p value= 0.691). No difference was found in terms of early and postoperative complications. Overall, 72 patients were considered as requiring adjuvant treatment. Two patients experienced peritoneal recurrence.\r\nCONCLUSIONS:\r\n\r\nThe present study suggests that there is no relevant difference between robotic and laparoscopic approach in staging EOC. Further prospective trials are needed to confirm our results.