Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study

Abstract Objective To compare 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) for cervical cancer. Methods We retrospectively compared the oncological outcomes of 10,314 cervical cancer patients who received RRH (n = 1048) or ARH (n = 9266) and whose stages were IA1 with lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI)-IIA2. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the 3-year OS and DFS rates between the RRH and ARH groups. Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching was used to estimate the surgical approach-specific survival. Results RRH and ARH showed similar 3-year OS and DFS rates (93.5% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.486; 90.0% vs. 90.4%, p = 0.302). RRH was not associated with a lower 3-year OS rate by the multivariable analysis (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.89–1.70, p = 0.206), but it was associated with a lower 3-year DFS rate (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09–1.52, p = 0.035). After propensity score matching, patients who underwent RRH had decreased 3-year OS and DFS rates compared to those who underwent ARH (94.4% vs. 97.8%, p = 0.002; 91.1% vs. 95.4%, p = 0.001), and RRH was associated with lower 3-year OS and DFS rates. Among patients with stage IB1 and tumor size Conclusions Overall, RRH was associated with worse 3-year oncological outcomes than ARH in patients with FIGO stage IA1 with LVSI- IIA2 cervical cancer. However, RRH showed similar 3-year oncological outcomes with ARH among those with stage IB1 and tumor size