Survival analysis of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic surgical staging for endometrial cancer

Joel Cardenas-Goicoechea, Amanda Shepherd, Mazdak Momeni, John Mandeli, Linus Chuang, Herbert Gretz, David Fishman, Jamal Rahaman, Thomas Randall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

54 Scopus citations


Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the survival of women with endometrial cancer managed by robotic- and laparoscopic-assisted surgery. Study Design This was a retrospective study conducted at 2 academic centers. Primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival (DFS), and disease recurrence. Results From 2003 through 2010, 415 women met the study criteria. A total of 183 women had robotic and 232 women had laparoscopic-assisted surgery. Both groups were comparable in age, body mass index, comorbid conditions, histology, surgical stage, tumor grade, total nodes retrieved, and adjuvant therapy. With a median follow-up of 38 months (range, 4-61 months) for the robotic and 58 months (range, 4-118 months) for the traditional laparoscopic group, there were no significant differences in survival (3-year survival 93.3% and 93.6%), DFS (3-year DFS 83.3% and 88.4%), and tumor recurrence (14.8% and 12.1%) for robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that surgery is not an independent prognostic factor of survival. Conclusion Robotic-assisted surgery yields equivalent oncologic outcomes when compared to traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial adenocarcinoma.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)160.e1-160.e11
JournalAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 2014


  • endometrial carcinoma
  • robotic surgery
  • traditional laparoscopy


Dive into the research topics of 'Survival analysis of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic surgical staging for endometrial cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this