Nationwide Introduction of Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery for Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer and Its Association With Severe Complications | Endometrial Cancer | JAMA Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Galaal  K, Bryant  A, Fisher  AD, Al-Khaduri  M, Kew  F, Lopes  AD.  Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(9):CD006655. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006655.pub2PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Janda  M, Gebski  V, Davies  LC,  et al.  Effect of total laparoscopic hysterectomy vs total abdominal hysterectomy on disease-free survival among women with stage I endometrial cancer: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2017;317(12):1224-1233. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.2068PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Fram  KM.  Laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy in stage I endometrial cancer.  Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2002;12(1):57-61. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1438.2002.01038.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Malur  S, Possover  M, Michels  W, Schneider  A.  Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal versus abdominal surgery in patients with endometrial cancer—a prospective randomized trial.  Gynecol Oncol. 2001;80(2):239-244. doi:10.1006/gyno.2000.6069PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Bijen  CB, Briët  JM, de Bock  GH, Arts  HJ, Bergsma-Kadijk  JA, Mourits  MJ.  Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of patients with early stage endometrial cancer: a randomized multi center study.  BMC Cancer. 2009;9:23. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-9-23PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Kornblith  AB, Huang  HQ, Walker  JL, Spirtos  NM, Rotmensch  J, Cella  D.  Quality of life of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing laparoscopic International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics staging compared with laparotomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.  J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5337-5342. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3529PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Zorlu  CG, Simsek  T, Ari  ES.  Laparoscopy or laparotomy for the management of endometrial cancer.  JSLS. 2005;9(4):442-446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Zullo  F, Palomba  S, Falbo  A,  et al.  Laparoscopic surgery vs laparotomy for early stage endometrial cancer: long-term data of a randomized controlled trial.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(3):296.e1-296.e9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.10.056PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Malzoni  M, Tinelli  R, Cosentino  F,  et al.  Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for early-stage endometrial cancer: a prospective randomized study.  Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(1):126-133. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Wright  JD, Burke  WM, Tergas  AI,  et al.  Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1087-1096. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.65.3212PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Bergstrom  J, Aloisi  A, Armbruster  S,  et al.  Minimally invasive hysterectomy surgery rates for endometrial cancer performed at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers.  Gynecol Oncol. 2018;148(3):480-484. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.01.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Fader  AN, Java  J, Tenney  M,  et al.  Impact of histology and surgical approach on survival among women with early-stage, high-grade uterine cancer: an NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group ancillary analysis.  Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(3):460-465. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.10.016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Holub  Z, Jabor  A, Bartos  P, Hendl  J, Urbánek  S.  Laparoscopic surgery in women with endometrial cancer: the learning curve.  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;107(2):195-200. doi:10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00373-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Seamon  LG, Fowler  JM, Richardson  DL,  et al.  A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer.  Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114(2):162-167. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.04.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Eltabbakh  GH.  Effect of surgeon’s experience on the surgical outcome of laparoscopic surgery for women with endometrial cancer.  Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78(1):58-61. doi:10.1006/gyno.2000.5828PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Gala  RB, Margulies  R, Steinberg  A,  et al; Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group.  Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.  J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(3):353-361. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Hoekstra  AV, Jairam-Thodla  A, Rademaker  A,  et al.  The impact of robotics on practice management of endometrial cancer: transitioning from traditional surgery.  Int J Med Robot. 2009;5(4):392-397. doi:10.1002/rcs.268PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Veljovich  DS, Paley  PJ, Drescher  CW, Everett  EN, Shah  C, Peters  WA  III.  Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(6):679.e1-679.e10. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Paley  PJ, Veljovich  DS, Shah  CA,  et al.  Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: analysis of first 1000 cases.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(6):551.e1-551.e9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.01.059PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Lau  S, Vaknin  Z, Ramana-Kumar  AV, Halliday  D, Franco  EL, Gotlieb  WH.  Outcomes and cost comparisons after introducing a robotics program for endometrial cancer surgery.  Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(4):717-724. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31824c0956PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Peiretti  M, Zanagnolo  V, Bocciolone  L,  et al.  Robotic surgery: changing the surgical approach for endometrial cancer in a referral cancer center.  J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16(4):427-431. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Pedersen  CB.  The Danish Civil Registration System.  Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7)(suppl):22-25. doi:10.1177/1403494810387965PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Sørensen  SM, Bjørn  SF, Jochumsen  KM,  et al.  Danish Gynecological Cancer Database.  Clin Epidemiol. 2016;8:485-490. doi:10.2147/CLEP.S99479PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Lynge  E, Sandegaard  JL, Rebolj  M.  The Danish National Patient Register.  Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7)(suppl):30-33. doi:10.1177/1403494811401482PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Charlson  M, Szatrowski  TP, Peterson  J, Gold  J.  Validation of a combined comorbidity index.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(11):1245-1251. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90129-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Charlson  ME, Pompei  P, Ales  KL, MacKenzie  CR.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.  J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Thygesen  SK, Christiansen  CF, Christensen  S, Lash  TL, Sørensen  HT.  The predictive value of ICD-10 diagnostic coding used to assess Charlson Comorbidity Index conditions in the population-based Danish National Registry of Patients.  BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:83. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-83PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Helweg-Larsen  K.  The Danish Register of Causes of Death.  Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7)(suppl):26-29. doi:10.1177/1403494811399958PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Thygesen  LC, Daasnes  C, Thaulow  I, Brønnum-Hansen  H.  Introduction to Danish (nationwide) registers on health and social issues: structure, access, legislation, and archiving.  Scand J Public Health. 2011;39(7 suppl):12-16. doi:10.1177/1403494811399956PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
The National Centre for Register-Based Research. The integrated database for labour market research (IDA). http://econ.au.dk/the-national-centre-for-register-based-research/danish-registers/the-integrated-database-for-labour-market-research-ida/. Accessed September 12, 2018.
31.
Quaglia  A, Lillini  R, Mamo  C, Ivaldi  E, Vercelli  M; SEIH (Socio-Economic Indicators, Health) Working Group.  Socio-economic inequalities: a review of methodological issues and the relationships with cancer survival.  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;85(3):266-277. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2012.08.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Galobardes  B, Shaw  M, Lawlor  DA, Lynch  JW, Davey Smith  G.  Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1).  J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(1):7-12. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.023531PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
World Health Organization.  Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2000.
34.
American Society of Anesthesiologists. ASA physical status classification system. https://www.asahq.org/standards-and-guidelines/asa-physical-status-classification-system. Accessed January 18, 2019.
35.
Brüggmann  D, Tchartchian  G, Wallwiener  M, Münstedt  K, Tinneberg  H-R, Hackethal  A.  Intra-abdominal adhesions: definition, origin, significance in surgical practice, and treatment options.  Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010;107(44):769-775. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2010.0769PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
Tavassoli FA, Devilee P, eds.  Pathology & Genetics: Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. WHO Classification of Tumours. 3rd ed. Vol 4. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003.
37.
Creasman  W.  Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105(2):109. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Bosse  T, Peters  EEM, Creutzberg  CL,  et al.  Substantial lymph-vascular space invasion (LVSI) is a significant risk factor for recurrence in endometrial cancer—a pooled analysis of PORTEC 1 and 2 trials.  Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(13):1742-1750. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2015.05.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Janda  M, Gebski  V, Brand  A,  et al.  Quality of life after total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for stage I endometrial cancer (LACE): a randomised trial.  Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(8):772-780. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70145-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Walker  JL, Piedmonte  MR, Spirtos  NM,  et al.  Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2.  J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331-5336. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Obermair  A, Janda  M, Baker  J,  et al.  Improved surgical safety after laparoscopic compared to open surgery for apparent early stage endometrial cancer: results from a randomised controlled trial.  Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(8):1147-1153. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.055PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Tozzi  R, Malur  S, Koehler  C, Schneider  A.  Analysis of morbidity in patients with endometrial cancer: is there a commitment to offer laparoscopy?  Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97(1):4-9. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.12.048PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Boggess  JF, Gehrig  PA, Cantrell  L,  et al.  A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(4):360.e1-360.e9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Park  HK, Helenowski  IB, Berry  E, Lurain  JR, Neubauer  NL.  A comparison of survival and recurrence outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer undergoing robotic versus open surgery.  J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(6):961-967. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2015.04.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Coronado  PJ, Herraiz  MA, Magrina  JF, Fasero  M, Vidart  JA.  Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer.  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165(2):289-294. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Corrado  G, Cutillo  G, Pomati  G,  et al.  Surgical and oncological outcome of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and abdominal surgery in the management of endometrial cancer.  Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(8):1074-1081. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2015.04.020PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
ElSahwi  KS, Hooper  C, De Leon  MC,  et al.  Comparison between 155 cases of robotic vs 150 cases of open surgical staging for endometrial cancer.  Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124(2):260-264. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.09.038PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Leitao  MM, Narain  WR, Boccamazzo  D,  et al.  Impact of robotic platforms on surgical approach and costs in the management of morbidly obese patients with newly diagnosed uterine cancer.  Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(7):2192-2198. doi:10.1245/s10434-015-5062-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
DeNardis  SA, Holloway  RW, Bigsby  GE  IV, Pikaart  DP, Ahmad  S, Finkler  NJ.  Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer.  Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(3):412-417. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Seamon  LG, Bryant  SA, Rheaume  PS,  et al.  Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy.  Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(1):16-21. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181aa96c7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Jung  YW, Lee  DW, Kim  SW,  et al.  Robot-assisted staging using three robotic arms for endometrial cancer: comparison to laparoscopy and laparotomy at a single institution.  J Surg Oncol. 2010;101(2):116-121. doi:10.1002/jso.21436PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Estape  R, Lambrou  N, Estape  E, Vega  O, Ojea  T.  Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and staging for the treatment of endometrial cancer: a comparison with conventional laparoscopy and abdominal approaches.  J Robot Surg. 2012;6(3):199-205. doi:10.1007/s11701-011-0290-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Fader  AN, Seamon  LG, Escobar  PF,  et al.  Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy in women with high grade endometrial cancer: a multi-site study performed at high volume cancer centers.  Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(2):180-185. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.028PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Beck  TL, Schiff  MA, Goff  BA, Urban  RR.  Robotic, laparoscopic, or open hysterectomy: surgical outcomes by approach in endometrial cancer.  J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25(6):986-993. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2018.01.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Wright  JD, Burke  WM, Wilde  ET,  et al.  Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(8):783-791. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.36.7508PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Borgfeldt  C, Kalapotharakos  G, Asciutto  KC, Löfgren  M, Högberg  T.  A population-based registry study evaluating surgery in newly diagnosed uterine cancer.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(8):901-911. doi:10.1111/aogs.12918PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Scalici  J, Laughlin  BB, Finan  MA, Wang  B, Rocconi  RP.  The trend towards minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for endometrial cancer: an ACS-NSQIP evaluation of surgical outcomes.  Gynecol Oncol. 2015;136(3):512-515. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.11.014PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Lavoue  V, Zeng  X, Lau  S,  et al.  Impact of robotics on the outcome of elderly patients with endometrial cancer.  Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133(3):556-562. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.572PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Ind  TEJ, Marshall  C, Hacking  M,  et al.  Introducing robotic surgery into an endometrial cancer service—a prospective evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in a UK institution.  Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(1):137-144. doi:10.1002/rcs.1651PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare & you 2018. https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/medicare-and-you.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2019.
61.
Lowe  MP, Johnson  PR, Kamelle  SA, Kumar  S, Chamberlain  DH, Tillmanns  TD.  A multiinstitutional experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer.  Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2, pt 1):236-243. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181af2a74PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Lin  JF, Frey  M, Huang  JQ.  Learning curve analysis of the first 100 robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomies performed by a single surgeon.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;124(1):88-91. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.06.036PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Mäenpää  M, Nieminen  K, Tomás  E, Luukkaala  T, Mäenpää  JU.  Implementing robotic surgery to gynecologic oncology: the first 300 operations performed at a tertiary hospital.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(5):482-488. doi:10.1111/aogs.12620PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    February 27, 2019

    Nationwide Introduction of Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgery for Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer and Its Association With Severe Complications

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
    • 2Odense Patient Data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
    • 3Faculty of Health Sciences, Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
    • 4Department of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
    • 5Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
    • 6Research Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
    • 7Danish Centre for Health Economics, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
    JAMA Surg. 2019;154(6):530-538. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.5840
    Key Points

    Question  Is the nationwide introduction of minimally invasive robotic surgery associated with a decreased risk of severe complications in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer?

    Findings  A Danish nationwide cohort of 5654 women with early-stage endometrial cancer was divided into 2 groups based on the time of the introduction of minimally invasive robotic surgery in their region. The risk of severe complications was significantly reduced in the group undergoing surgery after the introduction of minimally invasive robotic surgery.

    Meaning  The national implementation of minimally invasive robotic surgery was associated with an increased proportion of minimally invasive surgical procedures, which translated into a reduced risk of severe complications in women with early-stage endometrial cancer.

    Abstract

    Importance  Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery (MILS) for endometrial cancer reduces surgical morbidity compared with a total abdominal hysterectomy. However, only a minority of women with early-stage endometrial cancer undergo MILS.

    Objective  To evaluate the association between the Danish nationwide introduction of minimally invasive robotic surgery (MIRS) and severe complications in patients with early-stage endometrial cancer.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  In this nationwide prospective cohort study of 5654 women with early-stage endometrial cancer who had undergone surgery during the period from January 1, 2005, to June 30, 2015, data from the Danish Gynecological Cancer Database were linked with national registers on socioeconomic status, deaths, hospital diagnoses, and hospital treatments. The women were divided into 2 groups; group 1 underwent surgery before the introduction of MIRS in their region, and group 2 underwent surgery after the introduction of MIRS. Women with an unknown disease stage, an unknown association with MIRS implementation, unknown histologic findings, sarcoma, or synchronous cancer were excluded, as were women who underwent vaginal or an unknown surgical type of hysterectomy. Statistical analysis was conducted from February 2, 2017, to May 4, 2018.

    Exposure  Minimally invasive robotic surgery, MILS, or total abdominal hysterectomy.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Severe complications were dichotomized and encompassed death within 30 days after surgery and intraoperative and postoperative complications diagnosed within 90 days after surgery.

    Results  A total of 3091 women (mean [SD] age, 67 [10] years) were allocated to group 1, and a total of 2563 women (mean [SD] age, 68 [10] years) were allocated to group 2. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, the odds of severe complications were significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.11-1.74). The proportion of women undergoing MILS was 14.1% (n = 436) in group 1 and 22.2% in group 2 (n = 569). The proportion of women undergoing MIRS in group 2 was 50.0% (n = 1282). In group 2, multivariate logistic regression analyses demonstrated that a total abdominal hysterectomy was associated with increased odds of severe complications compared with MILS (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.80-3.70) and MIRS (OR, 3.87; 95% CI, 2.52-5.93). No difference was found for MILS compared with MIRS (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.99-2.27).

    Conclusions and Relevance  The national introduction of MIRS changed the surgical approach for early-stage endometrial cancer from open surgery to minimally invasive surgery. This change in surgical approach was associated with a significantly reduced risk of severe complications.

    ×