Robotic-assisted Gynecological Surgery in Older Patients – a Comparative Cohort Study of Perioperative Outcomes

Abstract

Study design Because of current demographic developments, a hypothesis was proposed whereby older female patients aged > 65 years can be safely operated using minimally invasive, robotic-assisted surgery, despite having more preoperative comorbidities. A comparative cohort study was designed to compare the age group ≥ 65 years (older age group, OAG) with the age group < 65 years (younger age group, YAG) after robotic-assisted gynecological surgery (RAS) in two German centers.

Patients and methods Consecutive RAS procedures performed between 2016 and 2021 at the Women’s University Hospital of Jena and the Robotic Center Eisenach to treat benign or oncological indications were included in the study. The age groups were compared according to their preoperative comorbidities (ASA, Charlson comorbidity index [CCI], cumulative illness rating scale – geriatric version [CIRS-G]) and perioperative parameters such as Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification of surgical complications. Analysis was performed using Welch’s t-test, chi² test, and Fisher’s exact test.

Results A total of 242 datasets were identified, of which 63 (73 ± 5 years) were OAG and 179 were YAG (48 ± 10 years). Patient characteristics and the percentage of benign or oncological indications did not differ between the two age groups. Comorbidity scores and the percentage of obese patients were higher in the OAG group: CCI (2.7 ± 2.0 vs. 1.5 ± 1.3; p < 0.001), CIRS-G (9.7 ± 3.9 vs. 5.4 ± 2.9; p < 0.001), ASA class II/III (91.8% vs. 74.1%; p = 0.004), obesity (54.1% vs. 38.2%; p = 0.030). There was no difference between age groups, even grouped for benign or oncological indications, with regard to perioperative parameters such as duration of surgery (p = 0.088; p = 0.368), length of hospital stay (p = 0.786; p = 0.814), decrease in Hb levels (p = 0.811; p = 0.058), conversion rate (p = 1.000; p = 1.000) and CD complications (p = 0.433; p = 0.745).

Conclusion Although preoperative comorbidity was higher in the group of older female patients, no differences were found between age groups with regard to perioperative outcomes following robotic-assisted gynecological surgery. Patient age is not a contraindication for robotic gynecological surgery.

Keywords

benign and oncological indications - comorbidity - Clavien-Dindo classification - old age - robotic-assisted gynecological surgery

Publication History

Received: 15 July 2022

Accepted after revision: 28 November 2022

Article published online:
05 April 2023

• References/Literatur

• 1 Zimmermann JSM, Radosa JC, Radosa MP. et al. Survey of current practices and opinions of German Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy members regarding the treatment of ovarian neoplasia by robotic surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2021; 303: 1305-1313 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-020-05876-w.
• 2 Persson J, Salehi S, Bollino M. et al. Pelvic Sentinel lymph node detection in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer (SHREC-trial): the final step towards a paradigm shift in surgical staging. Eur J Cancer 2019; 116: 77-85 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.04.025.
• 3 Kimmig R, Aktas B, Buderath P. et al. Intraoperative navigation in robotically assisted compartmental surgery of uterine cancer by visualisation of embryologically derived lymphatic networks with indocyanine-green (ICG). J Surg Oncol 2016; 113: 554-559 DOI: 10.1002/jso.24174. (PMID: 26792025)
• 4 Schachar JS, Matthews CA. Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature. Transl Androl Urol 2020; 9: 959-970 DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.10.02. (PMID: 32420212)
• 5 Scandola M, Grespan L, Vicentini M. et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy vs traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy: five metaanalyses. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011; 18: 705-715 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.08.008. (PMID: 22024259)
• 6 Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L. et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign cases with complex pathology. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 585-593 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b47030.
• 7 Fitch K, Huh W, Bochner A. Open vs. minimally invasive hysterectomy: commercially insured costs and readmissions. Manag Care 2016; 25: 40-47 (PMID: 28121585)
• 8 Lim PC, Crane JT, English EJ. et al. Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons for benign indications. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2016; 133: 359-364 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.11.010. (PMID: 26952352)
• 9 Mäenpää M, Nieminen K, Tomás E. et al. Implementing robotic surgery to gynecologic oncology: the first 300 operations performed at a tertiary hospital. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94: 482-488 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12620. (PMID: 25721212)
• 10 Brunes M, Forsgren C, Warnqvist A. et al. Assessment of surgeon and hospital volume for robot-assisted and laparoscopic benign hysterectomy in Sweden. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021; 100: 1730-1739 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14166. (PMID: 33895985)
• 11 Moawad G, Tyan P, Vargas V. et al. Predictors of overnight admission after minimally invasive hysterectomy in the expert setting. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019; 26: 122-128 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.04.019. (PMID: 29723642)
• 12 Partridge JSL, Harari D, Dhesi JK. Frailty in the older surgical patient: a review. Age Ageing 2012; 41: 142-147 DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afr182. (PMID: 22345294)
• 13 Turrentine FE, Wang H, Simpson VB. et al. Surgical risk factors, morbidity, and mortality in elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 203: 865-877 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.08.026. (PMID: 17116555)
• 14 Mothes AR, Lehmann T, Kwetkat A. et al. Gynaecological Prolapse Surgery in Very Old Female Patients: A Case-Control Study on Co-Morbidity and Surgical Complications. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016; 76: 869-874 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-109868.
• 15 Fan CJ, Chien HL, Weiss MJ. et al. Minimally invasive versus open surgery in the Medicare population: a comparison of postoperative and economic outcomes. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 3874-3880 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6126-z. (PMID: 29484556)
• 16 Yuk JS, Cho H, Kim MH. et al. Incidence of bowel injury during gynecologic surgery for benign indications: A nationwide cross-sectional study of cases from 2009 to 2018. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2022; 158: 338-345 DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14021.
• 17 Son IT, Kim JY, Kim MJ. et al. Clinical and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective multicenter study. Int J Clin Oncol 2021; 26: 2237-2245 DOI: 10.1007/s10147-021-02009-4.
• 18 Moug SJ, McCarthy K, Coode-Bate J. et al. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer in the older person: A systematic review. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2015; 4: 311-318 DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2015.08.002. (PMID: 26468376)
• 19 Bàllesta López C, Cid JA, Poves I. et al. Laparoscopic surgery in the elderly patient. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 333-337 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-002-9056-7.
• 20 Heise D, Bednarsch J, Kroh A. et al. Operative Time, Age, and Serum Albumin Predict Surgical Morbidity After Laparoscopic Liver Surgery. Surg Innov 2021; 28: 714-722 DOI: 10.1177/1553350621991223. (PMID: 33568020)
• 21 Aloisi A, Tseng J, Kuhn T. et al. Robotic Surgery in the Frail Elderly: Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27: 3772-3780 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-08475-w. (PMID: 32328983)
• 22 Guy MS, Sheeder J, Behbakht K. et al. Comparative outcomes in older and younger women undergoing laparotomy or robotic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214: 350.e1-350.e10 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.09.085. (PMID: 27871836)
• 23 Lavoue V, Zeng X, Lau S. et al. Impact of robotics on the outcome of elderly patients with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 133: 556-562
• 24 Vaknin Z, Perri T, Lau S. et al. Outcome and quality of life in a prospective cohort of the first 100 robotic surgeries for endometrial cancer, with focus on elderly patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010; 20: 1367-1373
• 25 Zeng XZ, Lavoue V, Lau S. et al. Outcome of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer as a function of patient age. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2015; 25: 637-644 (PMID: 25723778)
• 26 Zakhari A, Czuzoj-Shulman N, Spence AR. et al. Hysterectomy for uterine cancer in the elderly: a comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted techniques. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016; 26: 1222-1227
• 27 Bourgin C, Lambaudie E, Houvenaeghel G. et al. Impact of age on surgical staging and approaches (laparotomy, laparoscopy and robotic surgery) in endometrial cancer management. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017; 43: 703-709 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.022. (PMID: 27955835)
• 28 Backes FJ, ElNaggar AC, Farrell MR. et al. Perioperative outcomes for laparotomy compared to robotic surgical staging of endometrial cancer in the elderly: a retrospective cohort. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2016; 26: 1717-1721 DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000822. (PMID: 27575633)
• 29 Leyh-Bannurah SR, Wagner C, Schuette A. et al. Feasibility of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in men at senior age ≥ 75 years: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of a high-volume center. Aging Male 2022; 25: 8-16 DOI: 10.1080/13685538.2021.2018417. (PMID: 34957914)
• 30 Sancı A, Özkaya MF, Oguz ES. et al. Perioperative adverse events and functional outcomes following open and robot-assisted prostatectomy in patients over age 70. Int J Clin Pract 2021; 75: e14754 DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14754. (PMID: 34431181)
• 31 Garbarino GM, Costa G, Frezza B. et al. Robotic versus open oncological gastric surgery in the elderly: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Robot Surg 2021; 15: 741-749 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-020-01168-2. (PMID: 33151485)
• 32 Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205-213
• 33 Dindo D, Clavien PA. What is a Surgical Complication?. World J Surg 2008; 32: 939-941 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-008-9584-y. (PMID: 18414942)
• 34 Dindo D, Clavien PA. Interest in morbidity scores and classification in general surgery. Cir Esp 2009; 86: 269-271 DOI: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2009.07.004. (PMID: 19758586)
• 35 Aloisi A, Tseng JH, Sandadi S. et al. Is Robotic-Assisted Surgery Safe in the Elderly Population? An Analysis of Gynecologic Procedures in Patients ≥ 65 Years Old. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26: 244-251 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6997-1. (PMID: 30421046)
• 36 Drevet S, Bioteau C, Maziere S. et al. Prevalence of protein-energy malnutrition in hospital patients over 75 years of age admitted for hip fracture. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014; 100: 669-674 DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.05.003. (PMID: 24998085)
• 37 Gitas G, Alkatout I, Proppe L. et al. Long-term satisfaction of patients after laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2022; 305: 1481-1490 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-021-06360-9. (PMID: 34954814)
• 38 Malani PN. Functional status assessment in the preoperative evaluation of older adults. JAMA 2009; 302: 1582-1583 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1453. (PMID: 19826029)
• 39 Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL. et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373-383 DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8. (PMID: 3558716)
• 40 Parmelee PA, Thuras PD, Katz IR. et al. Validation of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale in a geriatric residential population. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995; 43: 130-137 DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1995.tb06377.x. (PMID: 7836636)
• 41 Miller MD, Paradis CF, Houck PR. et al. Rating chronic medical illness burden in geropsychiatric practice and research: application of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale. Psychiatry Res 1992; 41: 237-248 DOI: 10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-n. (PMID: 1594710)
• 42 de Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ. et al. How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 221-229 DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00585-1. (PMID: 12725876)
• 43 Wedding U, Roehrig B, Klippstein A. et al. Comorbidity in patients with cancer: prevalence and severity measured by cumulative illness rating scale. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2007; 61: 269-276 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2006.11.001. (PMID: 17207632)
• 44 Bo M, Cacello E, Ghiggia F. et al. Predictive factors of clinical outcome in older surgical patients. Arch Geronto Geriatr 2006; 44: 215-224 DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2006.05.007. (PMID: 16870278)
• 45 Linn BS, Linn MW, Gurel L. Cumulative illness rating scale. J Am Geriatr Soc 1968; 16: 622-626 DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1968.tb02103.x. (PMID: 5646906)