Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Radical Trachelectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: Case Report and Review of Literature

We conducted a literature review to evaluate the minimally invasive fertility-sparing procedures, namely robotic radical trachelectomy (RRT) and laparoscopic radical trachelectomy (LRT), in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, Google Scholar, and Scopus up to July 2015 using the following key words and their combinations: cervical cancer, early stage, fertility-sparing surgery, radical trachelectomy, robotic trachelectomy, and laparoscopic trachelectomy. Papers providing details of RRT and LRT separately were included. Extracted papers and their bibliographies were reviewed according to the purpose of the study, and demographic, surgical, and clinical parameters were analyzed. Our review comprised 45 cases of RRT and 216 cases (including our case) of LRT. The median (range) patient age was 29 (9) years in the RRT group and 32 (10) years in the LRT group (p < .001). Histological types and stages were significantly different in the 2 groups (p < .001 for both). The median length of excised parametrial tissue was significantly higher in the RRT group (p < .001). The hysterectomy conversion rate on the results of frozen section examination was significantly higher in the RRT group (37% vs 6.5%; p < .001). There was a significant difference in median lymph node count based on the surgical approach (RRT: 22 [range, 21] vs LRT: 32 [range, 14]; p = .02). Estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in the LRT group (both p < .001). The mean (range) operative time was 308 (188) minutes in the RRT group and 296 (143) minutes in the LRT group (p < .001). Pregnancy, preterm, and term birth rates were similar in the 2 groups (RRT: 18.5%, 7.4%, and 0, respectively; LRT: 29%, 8%, and 8%, respectively). Thirteen women experienced recurrent cervical cancer in the LRT group, and no recurrence was seen in the RRT group. The median (range) duration of follow-up was 8 (7.5) months in the RRT group and 34 (20) months in the LRT group (p < .001). Based on the reported data, LRT seems comparable to RRT for treating patients with early-stage cervical cancer who wish to preserve fertility.