Robotically assisted para-aortic lymphadenectomy: Surgical results: A cohort study of 487 patients

Delphine Hudry, Sarfraz Ahmad, Vanna Zanagnolo, Fabrice Narducci, Maxime Fastrez, Jordi Ponce, Elisabeth Tucher, Fabrice Lécuru, Vanessa Conri, Pierre Leguevaque, Frédéric Goffin, Robert W. Holloway, Eric Lambaudie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) in patients with gynecologic cancers during the learning phases of robotic surgery programs and to compare results of extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approaches of PAL. Materials and Methods: This study is a retrospective multicentric study of patients who underwent robotically assisted laparoscopic PAL (N = 487). Eleven European centers and 1 US center participated in the study. Abstracted data included age, body mass index, indication, type of surgical approach (transperitoneal or extraperitoneal), associated surgical procedures, operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node count, hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications. Para-aortic lymphadenectomy was performed by an extraperitoneal approach in 58 cases (12%) and transperitoneal in 429 cases (88%). Results: The mean (SD) para-aortic lymph node count was 12.6 (8.1), operative time was 217 (85) minutes, estimated blood loss was 105 (110) mL, and LOS was 2.8 (3.2) days. Four (0.8%) conversions to open and 2 (0.4%) conversions to laparoscopy were described. There were 32 lymphocysts (6.6%), 3 deep venous thromboses (0.6%), and 10 transfusions (2.1%). For transperitoneal approach, the average number of lymph nodes removed was higher in isolated PAL group than the hysterectomy combined group (report node counts 95% confidence interval, -7.29 to -3.52, P = 1.5 × 10-6). For isolated PAL, the LOS was shorter in the extraperitoneal group than in the transperitoneal group (report data 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.35, P = 0.001). Conclusions: Robotic-assisted PAL seems safe and feasible. More lymph nodes were removed during an isolated transperitoneal PAL dissection compared with a combined procedure with hysterectomy. Extraperitoneal approach seems attractive relative to transperitoneal dissection, but the superiority of one or the other way is not demonstrated by our study.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)504-511
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Mar 10 2015


  • Cervical cancer
  • Endometrial cancer
  • Para-aortic lymphadenectomy
  • Robotic surgery
  • Surgical outcomes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • Oncology
  • Medicine(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'Robotically assisted para-aortic lymphadenectomy: Surgical results: A cohort study of 487 patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this