ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and cost for patients with endometrial cancer undergoing vaginal hysterectomy (VH) or robotic hysterectomy (RH), with or without lymphadenectomy (LND). METHODS: Patients undergoing planned VH (and laparoscopic LND) or RH (and robotic LND) between January 2007 and November 2012 were reviewed. Patients with stage IV disease, synchronous cancer, synchronous surgery, or treated with palliative intent were excluded. Patients were objectively triaged to LND per institutional protocol based on frozen section. Outcomes were compared between VH and RH groups matched 1:1 on propensity scores. RESULTS: VH was planned in 153 patients; 60 (39%) had concurrent LND while 93 (61%) were low risk and did not require LND. RH was planned in 398 patients; 225 (56%) required concurrent LND and 173 (44%) did not. Among 50 PS-matched pairs without LND, there was no significant difference in complications, length of stay, readmission, or progression free survival. However, median operative time was 1.3h longer and median 30-day cost $3150 higher for RH compared to VH (both p<0.001). Among patients requiring LND, 42 PS-matched pairs were identified. Median operative time was not different when pelvic and para-aortic LND was performed, and 12min longer in the VH group for pelvic LND alone (p=0.03). Median 30-day cost was $921 higher for RH compared to VH when LND was required (p=0.08). CONCLUSION: Utilization of vaginal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer results in similar surgical and oncologic outcomes and lower costs compared to RH and should be considered for appropriate patients with a low risk of requiring LND.
Subject(s)
Endometrial Neoplasms/economics , Endometrial Neoplasms/surgery , Hysterectomy, Vaginal/economics , Robotic Surgical Procedures/economics , Cohort Studies , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Female , Health Care Costs , Humans , Hysterectomy, Vaginal/methods , Lymph Node Excision/economics , Lymph Node Excision/methods , Retrospective Studies , Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Determine whether a standardized protocol for temporary bowel diversion after rectosigmoid resection (RSR) for cytoreduction can reduce the rate of anastomotic leak (AL). METHODS: A prospective quality improvement project for patients undergoing RSR during debulking surgery from 07/2013 to 01/2016 was conducted. Patients with any of the following underwent temporary diversion: preoperative albumin ≤3.0g/dL, prior pelvic radiation, RSR plus additional large bowel resection (LBR), anastomosis (AS) ≤6cm from the anal verge, failed leak test or contamination of the pelvis with stool. The AL rate was compared to the historic AL rate from 01/04-06/11. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients underwent RSR, with 27 (35.1%) receiving diverting stomas vs. 25/309 (8.1%) in the historic cohort. Additional LBR (33.3%) and AS at ≤6cm from anal verge (26.3%) were the most common indications for diversion. No AL was observed among diverted patients. If one AL which occurred following protocol violation (failed leak test but not diverted) is excluded, the theoretical AL rate is 1.3% (1/77) vs. 7.8% (24/309; P=0.039) in the historic cohort. Not excluding this case, the AL rate was 2.6% (2/77) vs. 7.8% (P=0.11). Short-term outcomes following primary surgery were not different between diverted and non-diverted patients. Stoma-related complications were observed in 7/27 (25.9%) patients, primarily related to dehydration. Reversal surgery was successfully performed in 24/75 (88.9%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria-based temporary bowel diversion for patients undergoing RSR for gynecologic cancer reduced the AL rate. Diversion was associated with acceptable morbidity and high reversal rate.
