Nationwide Comparison of Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes in Endometrial Cancer Patients Undergoing Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Surgery: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Kyung-Jin Eoh; Eun-Ji Nam; Sang-Wun Kim; Minkyung Shin; Stella J-H Kim; Jung-Ae Kim; Yong-Tae Kim

doi:10.4143/crt.2020.802

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 53(2); 2021 > Article

Original Article Gynecologic cancer Nationwide Comparison of Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes in Endometrial Cancer Patients Undergoing Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Surgery: A Population-Based Cohort Study: Kyung-Jin Eoh¹, Eun-Ji Nam², Sang-Wun Kim², Minkyung Shin³, Stella J-H Kim⁴, Jung-Ae Kim⁴, Yong-Tae Kim²; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2020.802
Published online: October 22, 2020

¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yongin, Korea

²Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women’s Life Medical Science, Women’s Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Center, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Health Economics and Outcomes Research - APAC, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA

⁴IQVIA Korea, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Yong Tae Kim, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Women’s Life Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea,
Tel: 82-2-2228-2230, Fax: 82-2-313-8357, E-mail: ytkchoi@yuhs.ac

• Received: September 21, 2020 • Accepted: October 20, 2020

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

7,862 Views
226 Download
23 Web of Science
24 Crossref
20 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
Population-based comparisons between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (robotic surgery [RS] and laparoscopic surgery [LS]) and open surgery (OS) for managing endometrial cancer are lacking. This study aimed to compare surgical and oncologic outcomes between endometrial cancer patients who underwent surgical staging via MIS or OS.
Materials and Methods
A population-based retrospective cohort study was performed using claims data from the Korean National Health Insurance database from January 2012 to December 2016. All patients who underwent hysterectomy under diagnosis of endometrial cancer were identified. Patients were classified into RS, LS, and OS groups. Operative and oncologic outcomes were compared among the three groups after adjustments for age group, risk group (adjuvant therapy status), modified Charlson comorbidity index, income level, insurance type, and index year using propensity scores obtained via the inverse probability of treatment weighted method.
Results
After adjustment, 5,065 patients (RS, n=315; LS, n=3,248; OS, n=1,503) were analyzed. Patient demographics were comparable. Hospital stay, postoperative complications, and cost were more favorable in the RS and LS groups than in the OS group (all p < 0.001). Five-year overall survival was significantly longer in the RS and LS groups than in the OS group (94.8%, 91.9%, and 86.9%, respectively; p < 0.001). Moreover, the survival benefit of RS was shown in the subgroup analysis of low-risk endometrial cancer patients.
Conclusion
Our study provides further evidence for the RS being a safe surgical alternative to the LS and OS, especially in low-risk endometrial cancer patients, offering surgical and oncologic outcomes equivalent to other surgical approaches.
Key words: Robot-assisted surgery, Endometrial neoplasms, Population-based cohort study

Introduction

Endometrial cancer is the most common malignancy of the female reproductive tract in industrialized countries [1]. Surgery is the first major step in the management of this disease, and the outcomes of surgery can guide the choice of postoperative adjuvant treatment. At present, open surgery (OS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and robotic surgery (RS) can be used to treat endometrial cancer [2].

Compared to the OS, the LS provides equivalent oncologic outcomes with reduced surgical and postoperative morbidity [3,4]. However, the steep learning curve associated with the LS restricts its widespread application as a surgical treatment for endometrial cancer. The introduction of robot-assisted LS with a relatively shallower learning curve has encouraged more gynecologic oncologists to employ minimally invasive surgery (MIS) over the OS when treating endometrial cancer, and this has resulted in approximately 80% of patients undergoing hysterectomy for cancer by the RS in the United States [5].

Previous research comparing the OS with the LS [6] and the LS with the RS exists [7], along with one meta-analysis comparing all three approaches [8]. However, data are scarce concerning the direct comparison of survival outcomes among the OS, the LS, and the RS for endometrial cancer [9]. Thus, the advantage of the RS relative to the LS and the OS in the treatment of endometrial cancer has not yet been fully determined.

Therefore, in this study, we performed a nationwide population-based cohort study to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of different surgical approaches with the aim of evaluating the advantages of the RS in the staging of endometrial cancer.

Materials and Methods

1. Study design and database

We performed a nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study by investigating the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) claims database from January 2012 to December 2016. The Korean NHIS is a mandatory national health insurance program established by the government that covers all forms of health-care utilization, including pharmaceutical services, outpatient and inpatient care, and diagnostic and surgical procedures for the entire population (approximately 51 million people). Hospitals are required to submit all information regarding health-care utilization for reimbursement, and this information is registered in a comprehensive database managed by the NHIS. The NHIS database also contains information on personal demographics and diagnoses identified by the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10) codes.

The Korean government provides additional financial support for patients diagnosed with a “Rare Incurable Disease,” including endometrial cancer, who are registered using a specific code for the “Exempted Calculation of Health Insurance” based on a histopathologic evaluation. Accordingly, detecting patients with endometrial cancer using the cancer-related ICD-10 codes combined with the additional code for the Rare Incurable Disease is considered to be reliable.

Although RS is not covered by the NHIS in South Korea, it has been used in several gynecologic fields as an MIS since 2006 [10]. Since data on the actual cost of RS are not available in the claims database, a direct cost comparison of the total cost according to the mode of surgery was not possible. Instead, a comparison was performed using costs claimed within 30 days of each surgery in the outpatient and emergency department under the diagnosis of endometrial cancer.

2. Study population identification

Women aged 18 years or older from the database were included in this analysis. Patients who had invalid data on hysterectomy, who had been diagnosed with other types of cancer at the time of hysterectomy, and who had missing sociodemographic information were excluded.

Patients were assigned to each group with the following process. First, among the patients with endometrial cancer, women who had a general anesthesia code and a postoperative pathology examination code were selected. Then, patients who had both hysterectomy procedure and laparoscopy material code were allotted to the LS group. The patients who had only hysterectomy procedure code without a laparoscopy material code were defined as the OS group. Finally, the RS group was defined as the absence of a hysterectomy procedure code and a laparoscopy material code [11].

3. Confounding factors

Confounding factors were extracted from the database, including age group, risk group, modified Charlson comorbidity index (mCCI) score, income level, insurance type, and hysterectomy year. The risk group was determined according to whether the patients were treated with adjuvant therapy, including chemotherapy or radiotherapy, within 6 months after discharge. Comorbidities were assessed using the mCCI, which differed from the standard Charlson comorbidity index by excluding the subject’s age and presence or absence of kidney disease [12]. Comorbidities were considered to be confounding factors when there was a reported correlation between the concomitant chronic disease and the prognosis of cancer [13]. The diagnosis of a comorbidity was defined as a diagnosis at any visit within the one year prior to the hysterectomy date.

4. Statistical analysis

To estimate unbiased causal treatment effects in the national cohort data, we used the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method [14]. Demographic and tumor characteristics were compared using chi-squared tests. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to determine the hazard ratio (HR) for predicting recurrence or death after adjustments for confounding variables. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the duration, in days, from the date of surgery to the recurrence or end of follow-up, and overall survival was defined as the interval between the date of surgery and death or end of follow-up, whichever came first. The survival analysis was presented as Kaplan-Meier plots. p-values less than 0.017 (0.05/3=0.017) were considered significant for multiple testing (RS vs. LS, RS vs. OS, LS vs. OS). All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS Enterprise Guide ver. 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

1. Study population

After the IPTW adjustment, 5,065 patients with endometrial cancer treated with either RS (n=315, 6.2%), LS (n=3,248, 64.1%), or OS (n=1,503, 29.7%) were included in the final analysis (Fig. 1). The three cohorts showed no significant difference in age group, risk group, type of health insurance, income level, mCCI score, comorbidities, and index year (Table 1). RS and LS were more likely than OS to be performed in metropolitan hospitals (p < 0.001).

2. Recovery outcomes and postoperative morbidity

Postoperative complications occurred in 21patients (6.8%) in the RS group, 240 (7.4%) in the LS group, and 222 (14.8%) in the OS group, with the overall complication rate being significantly lower in the MIS group (RS and LS) than in the OS group. Disorders of the lymphatic vessels, disruption of operation wounds, and intestinal obstruction were more common in the OS group than in the other two groups (Table 2).

Patients in the MIS (RS and LS) groups showed earlier recovery with respect to the length of hospital stay than those in the OS group (RS vs. LS vs. OS: 10.2 days vs. 10.3 days vs. 13.8, respectively, p < 0.001). There was no difference between the RS and LS groups (Table 2).

3. Cost of outpatient and emergency room visits after surgery

The number of outpatient visits was significantly lower in the MIS group (RS and LS) compared with the OS group (2.9 vs. 2.9 vs. 3.8 visits: RS vs. LS vs. OS, respectively, p < 0.001). In addition, the total cost of the visits was the lowest in the RS group ($298.00 vs. $348.66 vs. $532.69: RS vs. LS vs. OS, respectively, p < 0.001). The total cost of the emergency room visits after surgery was the lowest in the RS group ($633.14 vs. $781.32 vs. $1,974.44: RS vs. LS vs. OS, respectively, p < 0.001). However, a significant difference was not noted between the RS and LS groups (Table 3).

4. Oncologic outcomes

PFS was more favorable in the MIS (RS and LS) group than in the OS group (93.1%, 92.3%, and 87.5%, p < 0.001) (Fig. 2A). The five-year overall survival was significantly longer for the RS and the LS group than the OS group (94.8%, 91.9%, and 86.9%, respectively, p < 0.001) (Fig. 2B). Moreover, according to the univariate and multivariate analyses using the Cox proportional hazards model, the index surgery was a significant factor in predicting overall death, along with prognostic factors such as age group, mCCI score, and risk group (Table 4). The survival benefit of the RS was observed in the subgroup analysis for the low endometrial cancer risk group but not the high-risk group (S1 Table).

Discussion

This study compared the operative and oncologic outcomes among open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted staging surgeries in the era of a shift in the standard of care in endometrial cancer management from the OS to MIS [5]. We found that robotic staging surgery did not seem to compromise surgical or survival outcomes when compared to conventional laparoscopic and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. To the best of our knowledge, this population-based cohort study is the largest to compare the oncologic outcomes according to the three modes of surgery in endometrial cancer after the introduction of the RS to the field of gynecologic oncology.

Regarding recovery outcomes, postoperative complications, and cost after the index surgery, the RS was shown to be equivalent to the conventional LS and superior to the OS, which is in accordance with previous studies [15,16]. The reason for this finding may be the RS is gentler, causes minor damage to the internal organs, produces less postoperative pain, and aids faster return to a normal diet and normal activities [17,18].

Any substantial change in the surgical approach to cancer management necessitates evaluation to ensure survival is not compromised. In terms of the survival outcomes of the MIS for endometrial cancer, most of the available studies compared the OS with the LS rather than with the RS and indicated that laparoscopy was a favorable alternative for patients with endometrial cancer [3,19]. In the present study, we compared the survival outcomes between IPTW propensity score-matched groups of patients undergoing RS, LS, and OS after the introduction of robot-assisted LS. Our results showed that the adoption of the RS did not compromise the survival outcomes compared with other modes of surgery.

Several studies have reported comparative long-term oncological outcomes between the OS and the RS for endometrial cancer. Corrado et al. [20] observed that the 3-year overall survival was 86.7% and 91.5% and the 3-year PFS was 92.1% and 91.5% for OS and RS, respectively. Likewise, Cardenas-Goicoechea et al. showed that there were no significant differences in survival between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries (3-year PFS was 88.4% and 83.3% and 3-year overall survival was 93.6% and 93.3% with LS and RS, respectively) [21]. Moreover, Brudie et al. [22] reported a 3-year PFS of 89.3% and 3-year overall survival of 89.1%, and Kilgore et al. [23] noted a 5-year overall survival of 89.1% in patients who underwent RS for endometrial cancer. In the present analysis, we demonstrated comparable survival outcomes (5-year PFS, 93.1%, and 5-year overall survival, 94.8%) in the RS group.

Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a large-scale meta-analysis have reported similar overall survival for the MIS and the OS, and that MIS is correlated with reduced surgical complications in non-metastatic endometrial cancer [3,19,24]. Though RCTs are accepted as having excellent internal validity, they do not necessarily describe the influence of a specific treatment in an entire population since frail subgroups tend to be excluded owing to strict inclusion criteria for enrollment [25]. Our population-based study included the entire population of Korea who were treated under the diagnosis of endometrial cancer and a subgroup analysis was performed. Notably, our subgroup analysis indicated that the positive correlation between RS and favorable survival outcomes was present among low-risk patients, and similar survival was observed among high-risk women. This finding showed that the RS for endometrial cancer is, therefore, not only considered oncologically safe but is also likely to provide clear benefits for low-risk endometrial cancer patients in general.

Our results on the survival outcomes are consistent with those of the previously reported nationwide retrospective cohort study, which analyzed a population-based registry. Patients with early-stage endometrial cancer derived from the National Cancer Database of the United States were analyzed [26]. The overall survival after RS improved significantly compared with OS when adjustments were made for age, surgical year, comorbidity, race, lymph-node yield, stage, adjuvant treatment, and economic status [26]. However, this analysis did not include patients treated with LS in the comparison. Another analysis of elderly middle-class patients with early-stage endometrial cancer from the registry of Medicare, a U.S. national insurance program, was performed, and comparable overall survival rates were observed for the MIS and the OS [27]. Unlike our study, this study did not distinguish between the RS and the LS, and the overall MIS was compared with the OS. The present study, encompassing 5,065 Korean patients with endometrial cancer, included all ages and socioeconomic statuses and found that the RS and the LS were associated with improved survival compared with the OS.

We believe that our data are reliable for comparing the operative and oncologic outcomes in the real world because the cancer diagnostic codes and demographic variables registered in the Korean NHIS database are deemed accurate. Nevertheless, we should interpret the findings of our study in the context of the limitations associated with this nationwide retrospective study. For example, variables such as surgical stage or cell types, which may influence the oncologic outcomes of endometrial cancer, were not considered. The retrospective nature of our study and unmeasured confounding variables are major limitations. Also, the number of patients who underwent the RS was relatively small compared to the LS or the OS. Further, potential selection bias, especially owing to the selection of patients who can undergo RS, may also exist.

In conclusion, our nationwide cohort study provides further evidence for the RS being a safe surgical alternative to the LS and the OS, especially in low-risk endometrial cancer patients, offering surgical and oncologic outcomes equivalent to other surgical approaches.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials are available at Cancer Research and Treatment website (https://www.e-crt.org).

crt-2020-802-suppl.pdf

NOTES

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine (Seoul, Korea) (IRB No. 4-2019-0817). Informed consent requirements were waived because the study was based on routinely collected administrative data, and patient data were kept anonymous.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the analysis: Eoh KJ, Nam EJ, Kim SW, Kim YT.

Collected the data: Shin M, Kim SJH, Kim JA.

Contributed data or analysis tools: Eoh KJ, Nam EJ, Kim SW, Shin M, Kim SJH, Kim JA, Kim YT.

Performed the analysis: Eoh KJ, Shin M, Kim SJH, Kim JA, Kim YT.

Wrote the paper: Eoh KJ, Kim YT.

Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Korean National Health Insurance Service for their cooperation.

Fig. 1

Flow diagram of the study population. IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; mCCI, modified Charlson comorbidity index.

Fig. 2

IPTW-adjusted progression-free survival (A) and overall survival (B) for patients with endometrial cancer. IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics for patients with endometrial cancer

Characteristic	Total (n=5,065)	RS (n=315)	LS (n=3,248)	OS (n=1,503)	p-value	p-value
Characteristic	Total (n=5,065)	RS (n=315)	LS (n=3,248)	OS (n=1,503)	p-value	RS vs. LS	RS vs. OS	LS vs. OS
Age (yr)
≤ 54	2,414 (47.7)	157 (50.0)	1,529 (47.1)	728 (48.4)	0.473	0.324	0.621	0.378
≥ 55	2,651 (52.3)	157 (50.0)	1,719 (52.9)	775 (51.6)
Health insurance
Health insurance	4,941 (97.5)	309 (98.3)	3,166 (97.5)	1,466 (97.5)	0.647	0.351	0.386	0.939
Medical aid	124 (2.5)	5 (1.7)	82 (2.5)	37 (2.5)
Income level
High (> 25th percentile)	3,558 (70.2)	233 (74.1)	2,270 (69.9)	1,055 (70.2)	0.296	0.118	0.170	0.809
Low (≤ 25th percentile)	1,507 (29.8)	82 (25.9)	978 (30.1)	447 (29.8)
mCCI score
0–1	3,007 (59.4)	192 (61.0)	1,925 (59.3)	890 (59.2)	0.839	0.561	0.573	0.985
≥ 2	2,058 (40.6)	123 (39.0)	1,323 (40.7)	613 (40.8)
Hysterectomy year
2012–2014	2,770 (54.7)	162 (51.4)	1,788 (55.0)	821 (54.6)	0.460	0.214	0.297	0.780
2015–2016	2,295 (45.3)	153 (48.6)	1,460 (45.0)	682 (45.4)
Risk group (adjuvant therapy)
Low risk	4,062 (80.2)	255 (81.2)	2,603 (80.1)	1,204 (80.1)	0.905	0.659	0.672	0.997
High risk	1,003 (19.8)	59 (18.8)	645 (19.9)	299 (19.9)
Geographical location
Metropolitan	3,345 (66.0)	227 (72.2)	2,292 (70.6)	825 (54.9)	< 0.001	0.539	< 0.001	< 0.001
Other	1,721 (34.0)	87 (27.8)	956 (29.4)	678 (45.1)
Chemotherapy	759 (15.0)	48 (15.2)	486 (15.0)	224 (14.9)	0.991	0.904	0.893	0.969
Radiotherapy	444 (8.8)	27 (8.5)	285 (8.8)	132 (8.8)	0.989	0.883	0.888	0.999
Chemotherapy and radiotherapy	199 (3.9)	16 (4.9)	126 (3.9)	58 (3.8)	0.642	0.364	0.369	0.939

Values are presented as number (%). LS, laparoscopic surgery; mCCI, modified Charlson Comorbidity Index; OS, open surgery; RS, robotic surgery

Table 2

Hospital stay and postoperativecomplications

Characteristic	Total (n=5,065)	RS (n=315)	LS (n=3,248)	OS (n=1,503)	p-value	p-value
Characteristic	Total (n=5,065)	RS (n=315)	LS (n=3,248)	OS (n=1,503)	p-value	RS vs. LS	RS vs. OS	LS vs. OS
Length of stay (mean±SD)	11.3±7.4	10.2±6.1	10.3±7.1	13.8±7.8	< 0.001	1.000	< 0.001	< 0.001
Post-operative complications	483 (9.5)	21 (6.8)	240 (7.4)	222 (14.8)	< 0.001	0.690	< 0.001	< 0.001
Injury to bladder	4 (0.1)	0	2 (0.1)	2 (0.1)	0.651	0.678	0.538	0.445
Injury to ureter	4 (0.1)	0	4 (0.1)	1 (0.0)	0.597	0.543	0.728	0.404
Injury to colon and rectum	0	0	0	0
Injury to blood vessels	3 (0.1)	0	1 (0.0)	2 (0.1)	0.276	0.768	0.497	0.136
Acute kidney failure	22 (0.4)	2 (0.5)	13 (0.4)	8 (0.5)	0.851	0.766	0.995	0.594
Bladder disorder	19 (0.4)	2 (0.5)	9 (0.3)	9 (0.6)	0.246	0.414	0.919	0.103
Vesicovaginal fistula	7 (0.1)	1 (0.3)	4 (0.1)	2 (0.1)	0.776	0.481	0.648	0.766
Rectovaginal fistula	1 (0.0)	0	1 (0.0)	0	0.771	0.764		0.512
Atelectasis	2 (0.0)	0	1 (0.0)	1 (0.0)	0.935	0.760	0.725	0.863
Vaginal vault prolapse	2 (0.0)	0	1 (0.0)	1 (0.0)	0.935	0.760	0.725	0.863
Disorders of lymphatic vessels and lymph nodes	263 (5.2)	15 (4.7)	124 (3.8)	125 (8.3)	< 0.001	0.430	0.030	< 0.001
Disruption of operation wound	75 (1.5)	2 (0.6)	37 (1.1)	36 (2.4)	0.001	0.366	0.039	0.001
Sepsis	3 (0.1)	0	1 (0.0)	2 (0.1)	0.381	0.761	0.526	0.201
Pneumonia	26 (0.5)	1 (0.2)	15 (0.5)	10 (0.7)	0.428	0.447	0.282	0.347
Embolism	36 (0.7)	0	19 (0.6)	16 (1.1)	0.045	0.173	0.062	0.058
Intestinal obstruction	35 (0.7)	0	14 (0.4)	21 (1.4)	< 0.001	0.239	0.035	0.000
Hematoma	10 (0.2)	0	4 (0.1)	6 (0.4)	0.156	0.517	0.277	0.091
Post-traumatic wound infection	12 (0.2)	0	7 (0.2)	5 (0.3)	0.504	0.415	0.311	0.457

Values are presented as number (%) unless otherwise indicated. LS, laparoscopic surgery; OS, open surgery; RS, robotic surgery; SD, standard deviation.

Table 3

Cost of endometrial cancer-related outpatient and ER visits after operation

Variable	Total (outpatients, n=4,759; ER, n=218)	RS (outpatients, n=296; ER, n=22)	LS (outpatients, n=3,079; ER, n=124)	OS (outpatients, n=1,384; ER, n=72)	p-value	p-value
Variable	Total (outpatients, n=4,759; ER, n=218)	RS (outpatients, n=296; ER, n=22)	LS (outpatients, n=3,079; ER, n=124)	OS (outpatients, n=1,384; ER, n=72)	p-value	RS vs. LS	RS vs. OS	LS vs. OS
No. of outpatient visits (range)	3.2 (1–22)	2.9 (1–13)	2.9 (1–22)	3.8 (1–21)	< 0.001	> 0.99	< 0.001	< 0.001
Cost of outpatient visits (USD)	399.03±754.97	298.00±617.42	348.66±689.38	532.69±893.61	< 0.001	0.802	< 0.001	< 0.001
Amount paid by payers	20.40±39.70	14.95±30.87	18.06±37.44	26.77±45.23	< 0.001	0.590	< 0.001	< 0.001
Amount paid by insurers	378.63±718.08	283.05±586.61	330.60±655.50	505.92±850.34	< 0.001	0.821	< 0.001	< 0.001
No. of ER visits (range)	1.1 (1–4)	1.1 (1–2)	1.1 (1–3)	1.1 (1–4)	0.857	> 0.99	> 0.99	> 0.99
Cost of ER visits (USD)	1,159.58±2,164.69	633.14±854.70	781.32±1,030.79	1,974.44±3,160.78	< 0.001	> 0.99	0.027	< 0.001
Amount paid by payers	90.43±160.32	74.89±164.41	66.56±108.84	136.43±208.83	0.011	> 0.99	0.330	0.009
Amount paid by insurers	1,069.08±2,025.52	558.25±714.09	714.65±944.06	1,838.02±2,968.99	< 0.001	> 0.99	0.023	< 0.001

Values are presented as mean (range) or mean±SD. ER, emergent room; LS, laparoscopic surgery; OS, open surgery; RS, robotic surgery; SD, standard deviation; USD, U.S. dollar.

Table 4

Univariate and multivariate hazard ratio for overall death

Variable	Univariate hazard ratio				Multivariate hazard ratio

	Crude univariate HR		IPTW-adjusted univariate HR		Crude univariate HR		IPTW-adjusted multivariate HR

	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Index surgery

OS	-		-		-		-

RS	0.182 (0.081–0.410)	< 0.001	0.288 (0.146–0.566)	< 0.001	0.268 (0.118–0.605)	0.002	0.302 (0.154–0.595)	0.001

LS	0.440 (0.355–0.545)	< 0.001	0.553 (0.445–0.687)	< 0.001	0.535 (0.430–0.665)	< 0.001	0.534 (0.429–0.664)	< 0.001

Age group (yr)

≤ 54	-		-		-		-

≥ 55	3.327 (2.584–4.283)	< 0.001	3.065 (2.387–3.936)	< 0.001	2.751 (2.131–3.552)	< 0.001	2.598 (2.016–3.347)	< 0.001

Health insurance

Health insurance	-		-

Medical aid	1.531 (0.860–2.723)	0.148	1.492 (0.823–2.704)	0.187

Income level

High (> 25th percentile)	-		-

Low (≤ 25th percentile)	0.991 (0.786–1.251)	0.942	0.980 (0.775–1.240)	0.867

mCCI score

0–1	-		-		-		-

≥ 2	1.578 (1.277–1.951)	< 0.001	1.580 (1.276–1.957)	< 0.001	1.421 (1.149–1.757)	0.001	1.460 (1.178–1.809)	0.001

Hysterectomy year

2012–2014	-		-

2015–2016	1.053 (0.819–1.354)	0.689	1.071 (0.831–1.380)	0.598

Risk group (adjuvant therapy)

Low risk	-		-		-		-

High risk	3.574 (2.890–4.421)	< 0.001	3.267 (2.634–4.052)	< 0.001	2.658 (2.136–3.309)	< 0.001	2.762 (2.221–3.434)	< 0.001

Geographical location

Metropolitan	-		-

Other	1.079 (0.864–1.347)	0.502	1.015 (0.809–1.272)	0.901

CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; LS, laparoscopic surgery; mCCI, modified Charlson comorbidity index; OS, open surgery; RS, robotic surgery.

REFERENCES

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:7–34. Article PubMed
2. Wright JD, Barrena Medel NI, Sehouli J, Fujiwara K, Herzog TJ. Contemporary management of endometrial cancer. Lancet. 2012;379:1352–60. Article PubMed
3. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:695–700. Article PubMed PMC
4. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5331–6. Article PubMed PMC
5. 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;119:717–24. Article PubMed
6. Chu LH, Chang WC, Sheu BC. Comparison of the laparoscopic versus conventional open method for surgical staging of endometrial carcinoma. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55:188–92. Article PubMed
7. Vuorinen RK, Maenpaa MM, Nieminen K, Tomas EI, Luukkaala TH, Auvinen A, et al. Costs of robotic-assisted versus traditional laparoscopy in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27:1788–93. Article PubMed
8. Ran L, Jin J, Xu Y, Bu Y, Song F. Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e108361.Article PubMed PMC
9. Jorgensen SL, Mogensen O, Wu CS, Korsholm M, Lund K, Jensen PT. Survival after a nationwide introduction of robotic surgery in women with early-stage endometrial cancer: a population-based prospective cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2019;109:1–11. Article PubMed
10. Kim YT, Kim SW, Hyung WJ, Lee SJ, Nam EJ, Lee WJ. Robotic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical carcinoma: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108:312–6. Article PubMed
11. Kang HW, Yun SJ, Chung JI, Choi H, Kim JH, Yu HS, et al. National practice patterns and direct medical costs for prostate cancer in Korea across a 10 year period: a nationwide population-based study using a national health insurance database. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:408.Article PubMed PMC PDF
12. Mehrotra R, Kermah D, Fried L, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Khawar O, Norris K, et al. Chronic peritoneal dialysis in the United States: declining utilization despite improving outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18:2781–8. Article PubMed
13. Read WL, Tierney RM, Page NC, Costas I, Govindan R, Spitznagel EL, et al. Differential prognostic impact of comorbidity. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3099–103. Article PubMed
14. Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34:3661–79. Article PubMed PMC
15. Salehi S, Avall-Lundqvist E, Legerstam B, Carlson JW, Falconer H. Robot-assisted laparoscopy versus laparotomy for infrarenal paraaortic lymphadenectomy in women with high-risk endometrial cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2017;79:81–9. Article PubMed
16. Bergstrom J, Aloisi A, Armbruster S, Yen TT, Casarin J, Leitao M Jr, et al. Minimally invasive hysterectomy surgery rates for endometrial cancer performed at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Centers. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;148:480–4. Article PubMed PMC
17. Jorgensen SL, Mogensen O, Wu C, Lund K, Iachina M, Korsholm M, et al. Nationwide introduction of minimally invasive robotic surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer and its association with severe complications. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:530–8. Article PubMed PMC
18. Galaal K, Donkers H, Bryant A, Lopes AD. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;10:CD006655.Article PubMed
19. Siesto G, Uccella S, Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Zefiro F, Serati M, et al. Surgical and survival outcomes in older women with endometrial cancer treated by laparoscopy. Menopause. 2010;17:539–44. Article PubMed
20. Corrado G, Cutillo G, Pomati G, Mancini E, Sperduti I, Patrizi L, 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;41:1074–81. Article PubMed
21. Cardenas-Goicoechea J, Shepherd A, Momeni M, Mandeli J, Chuang L, Gretz H, et al. Survival analysis of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:160.Article
22. Brudie LA, Backes FJ, Ahmad S, Zhu X, Finkler NJ, Bigsby GE 4th, et al. Analysis of disease recurrence and survival for women with uterine malignancies undergoing robotic surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;128:309–15. Article PubMed
23. Kilgore JE, Jackson AL, Ko EM, Soper JT, Van Le L, Gehrig PA, et al. Recurrence-free and 5-year survival following robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;129:49–53. Article PubMed
24. Janda M, Gebski V, Davies LC, Forder P, Brand A, Hogg R, 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;317:1224–33. Article PubMed
25. Booth CM, Tannock IF. Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:551–5. Article PubMed PMC
26. Safdieh J, Lee YC, Wong A, Lee A, Weiner JP, Schwartz D, et al. A comparison of outcomes between open hysterectomy and robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer using the National Cancer Database. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2017;27:1508–16. Article PubMed
27. Wright JD, Burke WM, Tergas AI, Hou JY, Huang Y, Hu JC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1087–96. Article PubMed PMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Surgical staging in early endometrial cancer without intra-uterine manipulator using the da Vinci SP robotic system
Eun Bi Jang, Yong-hee Park, Kyeong A So, Sun Joo Lee, Tae Jin Kim, Seung-Hyuk Shim
International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.2025; 35(2): 101615. CrossRef
Comparing robotic, laparoscopic, and laparotomy in endometrial cancer: a network meta-analysis
Wen-Rui Huang, Xing-Yan Ou, Xing-Zi Fang, Xiao-Xuan Tang, Lei Chen, Jing Ling, Wen-Cong Song, Xue-Lian Du
International Journal of Surgery.2025; 111(2): 2208. CrossRef
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
S. Gahunia, J. Wyatt, S. G. Powell, S. Mahdi, S. Ahmed, K. Altaf
Techniques in Coloproctology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Robot-assisted pelvic and renal surgery compared with laparoscopic or open surgery: Literature review of cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes
Thomas Davidson, Rune Sjödahl, Åke Aldman, Claes Lennmarken, Ann-Sofi Kammerlind, Elvar Theodorsson
Scandinavian Journal of Surgery.2024; 113(1): 13. CrossRef
Progress of Research on the Application of Robotic Surgical System in Gynecologic Malignancies
璐余
Advances in Clinical Medicine.2024; 14(03): 327. CrossRef
Sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns of endometrial cancer cases in Puerto Rico during the period 2009 to 2015: A retrospective study
Yisel Pagán Santana, Maira Castañeda Ávila, Ruth Ríos Motta, Karen J. Ortiz Ortiz, Asmerom Tesfamariam Sengal
PLOS ONE.2024; 19(5): e0302253. CrossRef
Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer: Robotic Single-Site vs. Multiport Laparoscopic Surgery
Heeju Kang, Hyewon Chung, Seungmee Lee, Tae-Kyu Jang, So-Jin Shin, Sang-Hoon Kwon, Chi-Heum Cho
Journal of Personalized Medicine.2024; 14(6): 601. CrossRef
Impact of Robotic Assistance on Minimally Invasive Surgery for Type II Endometrial Cancer: A National Cancer Database Analysis
Kelly Lamiman, Michael Silver, Nicole Goncalves, Michael Kim, Ioannis Alagkiozidis
Cancers.2024; 16(14): 2584. CrossRef
Clinical Relevance of Uterine Manipulation on Oncologic Outcome in Robot-Assisted versus Open Surgery in the Management of Endometrial Cancer
Kyung Jin Eoh, Yoo-Na Kim, Eun Ji Nam, Sang Wun Kim, Young Tae Kim
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2023; 12(5): 1950. CrossRef
Trend and characteristics of minimally invasive surgery for patients with endometrial cancer in Japan
Hiroshi Yoshida, Hiroko Machida, Koji Matsuo, Yoshito Terai, Takuma Fujii, Masaki Mandai, Kei Kawana, Hiroaki Kobayashi, Mikio Mikami, Satoru Nagase
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical Relevance of Red Blood Cell Distribution Width (RDW) in Endometrial Cancer: A Retrospective Single-Center Experience from Korea
Kyung-Jin Eoh, Tae-Kyung Lee, Eun-Ji Nam, Sang-Wun Kim, Young-Tae Kim
Cancers.2023; 15(15): 3984. CrossRef
Robot-Assisted Surgery in the Treatment of Gynecological Carcinoma and Malignancies: Introduction to the da Vinci Robotic Surgery System
Arnav Goel, Soumya Pamnani, Ashish Anjankar
Cureus.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: long-term comparison of outcomes
Kyung Jin Eoh, Tae-Joong Kim, Jeong-Yeol Park, Hee Seung Kim, Jiheum Paek, Young Tae Kim
Frontiers in Oncology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparison of Single-Port Laparoscopy with Other Surgical Approaches in Endometrial Cancer Surgical Staging: Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis
Sang Hyun Cho, Jung-Yun Lee, Eun Ji Nam, Sunghoon Kim, Young Tae Kim, Sang Wun Kim
Cancers.2023; 15(22): 5322. CrossRef
Short-Term Outcome of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer in Women with Diabetes: Analysis of the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample
Huang-Pin Shen, Chih-Jen Tseng
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2023; 12(24): 7713. CrossRef
Laparoscopic vs. open procedure for intermediate‑ and high‑risk endometrial cancer: a minimum 4-year follow-up analysis
Xing Zhou, Sitian Wei, Qingchun Shao, Jun Zhang, Rong Zhao, Rui Shi, Wei Zhang, Kejun Dong, Wan Shu, Hongbo Wang
BMC Cancer.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery for women with apparent early‐stage uterine serous carcinoma: A multi‐institutional retrospective cohort study
Yu Xu, Juan Shen, Qianwen Zhang, Yuedong He, Cheng Chen, Yong Tian
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics.2022; 158(1): 162. CrossRef
Impact of lymphadenectomy on short- and long-term complications in patients with endometrial cancer
Louisa Proppe, Ibrahim Alkatout, Ricarda Koch, Sascha Baum, Christos Kotanidis, Achim Rody, Lars C. Hanker, Georgios Gitas
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.2022; 306(3): 811. CrossRef
Survival Analysis in Endometrial Carcinomas by Type of Surgical Approach: A Matched-Pair Study
Pluvio J. Coronado, Agnieszka Rychlik, Laura Baquedano, Virginia García-Pineda, Maria A. Martínez-Maestre, Denis Querleu, Ignacio Zapardiel
Cancers.2022; 14(4): 1081. CrossRef
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of stage I endometrial cancer
Peter A. Argenta, Jordan Mattson, Colleen L. Rivard, Elizabeth Luther, Alexandra Schefter, Rachel I. Vogel
Gynecologic Oncology.2022; 165(2): 347. CrossRef
Effects of Quantitative Nursing Combined with Psychological Intervention in Operating Room on Stress Response, Psychological State, and Prognosis of Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Endometrial Cancer Surgery
Xiaojing Chen, Huiyan Li, Shouyan Wang, Yu Wang, Li Zhang, Dandan Yao, Li Li, Ge Gao, Shakeel Ahmad
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine.2022; 2022: 1. CrossRef
Increased HSF1 Promotes Infiltration and Metastasis in Cervical Cancer via Enhancing MTDH-VEGF-C Expression
Xueyan Shi, Zhenghao Deng, Shouman Wang, Shuai Zhao, Lan Xiao, Jiang Zou, Tao Li, Sichuang Tan, SipAin Tan, Xianzhong Xiao
OncoTargets and Therapy.2021; Volume 14: 1305. CrossRef
Surgical and Patient Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review
Khadija Alshowaikh, Katarzyna Karpinska-Leydier, Jashvini Amirthalingam , Gokul Paidi, Anuruddhika I Iroshani Jayarathna, Divya Bala Anthony Manisha R Salibindla, Huseyin Ekin Ergin
Cureus.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery in endometrial cancer:comparison with laparoscopic surgery and laparotomy
Yoshitsugu Chigusa, Sae Yu, Naoki Horikawa, Haruko Okamoto, Masumi Sunada, Ukita Masayo, Koji Yamanoi, Ken Yamaguchi, Akihito Horie, Masaki Mandai
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGIC AND OBSTETRIC ENDOSCOPY.2021; 37(2): 10. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Nationwide Comparison of Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes in Endometrial Cancer Patients Undergoing Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Surgery: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Cancer Res Treat. 2021;53(2):549-557. Published online October 22, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2020.802

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Electronic Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

A Nationwide Study of Differences in Surgical Treatment Rates and Oncological Outcomes for Prostate Cancer according to Economic Status and Region

Nationwide Comparison of Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes in Endometrial Cancer Patients Undergoing Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Surgery: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the study population. IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting; mCCI, modified Charlson comorbidity index.

Fig. 2 IPTW-adjusted progression-free survival (A) and overall survival (B) for patients with endometrial cancer. IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Nationwide Comparison of Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes in Endometrial Cancer Patients Undergoing Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Surgery: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Table 1

Baseline characteristics for patients with endometrial cancer

Characteristic	Total (n=5,065)	RS (n=315)	LS (n=3,248)	OS (n=1,503)	p-value	p-value
Characteristic	Total (n=5,065)	RS (n=315)	LS (n=3,248)	OS (n=1,503)	p-value	RS vs. LS	RS vs. OS	LS vs. OS
Age (yr)
≤ 54	2,414 (47.7)	157 (50.0)	1,529 (47.1)	728 (48.4)	0.473	0.324	0.621	0.378
≥ 55	2,651 (52.3)	157 (50.0)	1,719 (52.9)	775 (51.6)
Health insurance
Health insurance	4,941 (97.5)	309 (98.3)	3,166 (97.5)	1,466 (97.5)	0.647	0.351	0.386	0.939
Medical aid	124 (2.5)	5 (1.7)	82 (2.5)	37 (2.5)
Income level
High (> 25th percentile)	3,558 (70.2)	233 (74.1)	2,270 (69.9)	1,055 (70.2)	0.296	0.118	0.170	0.809
Low (≤ 25th percentile)	1,507 (29.8)	82 (25.9)	978 (30.1)	447 (29.8)
mCCI score
0–1	3,007 (59.4)	192 (61.0)	1,925 (59.3)	890 (59.2)	0.839	0.561	0.573	0.985
≥ 2	2,058 (40.6)	123 (39.0)	1,323 (40.7)	613 (40.8)
Hysterectomy year
2012–2014	2,770 (54.7)	162 (51.4)	1,788 (55.0)	821 (54.6)	0.460	0.214	0.297	0.780
2015–2016	2,295 (45.3)	153 (48.6)	1,460 (45.0)	682 (45.4)
Risk group (adjuvant therapy)
Low risk	4,062 (80.2)	255 (81.2)	2,603 (80.1)	1,204 (80.1)	0.905	0.659	0.672	0.997
High risk	1,003 (19.8)	59 (18.8)	645 (19.9)	299 (19.9)
Geographical location
Metropolitan	3,345 (66.0)	227 (72.2)	2,292 (70.6)	825 (54.9)	< 0.001	0.539	< 0.001	< 0.001
Other	1,721 (34.0)	87 (27.8)	956 (29.4)	678 (45.1)
Chemotherapy	759 (15.0)	48 (15.2)	486 (15.0)	224 (14.9)	0.991	0.904	0.893	0.969
Radiotherapy	444 (8.8)	27 (8.5)	285 (8.8)	132 (8.8)	0.989	0.883	0.888	0.999
Chemotherapy and radiotherapy	199 (3.9)	16 (4.9)	126 (3.9)	58 (3.8)	0.642	0.364	0.369	0.939

Values are presented as number (%). LS, laparoscopic surgery; mCCI, modified Charlson Comorbidity Index; OS, open surgery; RS, robotic surgery

Table 2

Hospital stay and postoperativecomplications

Characteristic	Total (n=5,065)	RS (n=315)	LS (n=3,248)	OS (n=1,503)	p-value	p-value
Characteristic	Total (n=5,065)	RS (n=315)	LS (n=3,248)	OS (n=1,503)	p-value	RS vs. LS	RS vs. OS	LS vs. OS
Length of stay (mean±SD)	11.3±7.4	10.2±6.1	10.3±7.1	13.8±7.8	< 0.001	1.000	< 0.001	< 0.001
Post-operative complications	483 (9.5)	21 (6.8)	240 (7.4)	222 (14.8)	< 0.001	0.690	< 0.001	< 0.001
Injury to bladder	4 (0.1)	0	2 (0.1)	2 (0.1)	0.651	0.678	0.538	0.445
Injury to ureter	4 (0.1)	0	4 (0.1)	1 (0.0)	0.597	0.543	0.728	0.404
Injury to colon and rectum	0	0	0	0
Injury to blood vessels	3 (0.1)	0	1 (0.0)	2 (0.1)	0.276	0.768	0.497	0.136
Acute kidney failure	22 (0.4)	2 (0.5)	13 (0.4)	8 (0.5)	0.851	0.766	0.995	0.594
Bladder disorder	19 (0.4)	2 (0.5)	9 (0.3)	9 (0.6)	0.246	0.414	0.919	0.103
Vesicovaginal fistula	7 (0.1)	1 (0.3)	4 (0.1)	2 (0.1)	0.776	0.481	0.648	0.766
Rectovaginal fistula	1 (0.0)	0	1 (0.0)	0	0.771	0.764		0.512
Atelectasis	2 (0.0)	0	1 (0.0)	1 (0.0)	0.935	0.760	0.725	0.863
Vaginal vault prolapse	2 (0.0)	0	1 (0.0)	1 (0.0)	0.935	0.760	0.725	0.863
Disorders of lymphatic vessels and lymph nodes	263 (5.2)	15 (4.7)	124 (3.8)	125 (8.3)	< 0.001	0.430	0.030	< 0.001
Disruption of operation wound	75 (1.5)	2 (0.6)	37 (1.1)	36 (2.4)	0.001	0.366	0.039	0.001
Sepsis	3 (0.1)	0	1 (0.0)	2 (0.1)	0.381	0.761	0.526	0.201
Pneumonia	26 (0.5)	1 (0.2)	15 (0.5)	10 (0.7)	0.428	0.447	0.282	0.347
Embolism	36 (0.7)	0	19 (0.6)	16 (1.1)	0.045	0.173	0.062	0.058
Intestinal obstruction	35 (0.7)	0	14 (0.4)	21 (1.4)	< 0.001	0.239	0.035	0.000
Hematoma	10 (0.2)	0	4 (0.1)	6 (0.4)	0.156	0.517	0.277	0.091
Post-traumatic wound infection	12 (0.2)	0	7 (0.2)	5 (0.3)	0.504	0.415	0.311	0.457

Values are presented as number (%) unless otherwise indicated. LS, laparoscopic surgery; OS, open surgery; RS, robotic surgery; SD, standard deviation.

Table 3

Cost of endometrial cancer-related outpatient and ER visits after operation

Variable	Total (outpatients, n=4,759; ER, n=218)	RS (outpatients, n=296; ER, n=22)	LS (outpatients, n=3,079; ER, n=124)	OS (outpatients, n=1,384; ER, n=72)	p-value	p-value
Variable	Total (outpatients, n=4,759; ER, n=218)	RS (outpatients, n=296; ER, n=22)	LS (outpatients, n=3,079; ER, n=124)	OS (outpatients, n=1,384; ER, n=72)	p-value	RS vs. LS	RS vs. OS	LS vs. OS
No. of outpatient visits (range)	3.2 (1–22)	2.9 (1–13)	2.9 (1–22)	3.8 (1–21)	< 0.001	> 0.99	< 0.001	< 0.001
Cost of outpatient visits (USD)	399.03±754.97	298.00±617.42	348.66±689.38	532.69±893.61	< 0.001	0.802	< 0.001	< 0.001
Amount paid by payers	20.40±39.70	14.95±30.87	18.06±37.44	26.77±45.23	< 0.001	0.590	< 0.001	< 0.001
Amount paid by insurers	378.63±718.08	283.05±586.61	330.60±655.50	505.92±850.34	< 0.001	0.821	< 0.001	< 0.001
No. of ER visits (range)	1.1 (1–4)	1.1 (1–2)	1.1 (1–3)	1.1 (1–4)	0.857	> 0.99	> 0.99	> 0.99
Cost of ER visits (USD)	1,159.58±2,164.69	633.14±854.70	781.32±1,030.79	1,974.44±3,160.78	< 0.001	> 0.99	0.027	< 0.001
Amount paid by payers	90.43±160.32	74.89±164.41	66.56±108.84	136.43±208.83	0.011	> 0.99	0.330	0.009
Amount paid by insurers	1,069.08±2,025.52	558.25±714.09	714.65±944.06	1,838.02±2,968.99	< 0.001	> 0.99	0.023	< 0.001

Values are presented as mean (range) or mean±SD. ER, emergent room; LS, laparoscopic surgery; OS, open surgery; RS, robotic surgery; SD, standard deviation; USD, U.S. dollar.

Table 4

Univariate and multivariate hazard ratio for overall death

Variable	Univariate hazard ratio				Multivariate hazard ratio

	Crude univariate HR		IPTW-adjusted univariate HR		Crude univariate HR		IPTW-adjusted multivariate HR

	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value	HR (95% CI)	p-value
Index surgery

OS	-		-		-		-

RS	0.182 (0.081–0.410)	< 0.001	0.288 (0.146–0.566)	< 0.001	0.268 (0.118–0.605)	0.002	0.302 (0.154–0.595)	0.001

LS	0.440 (0.355–0.545)	< 0.001	0.553 (0.445–0.687)	< 0.001	0.535 (0.430–0.665)	< 0.001	0.534 (0.429–0.664)	< 0.001

Age group (yr)

≤ 54	-		-		-		-

≥ 55	3.327 (2.584–4.283)	< 0.001	3.065 (2.387–3.936)	< 0.001	2.751 (2.131–3.552)	< 0.001	2.598 (2.016–3.347)	< 0.001

Health insurance

Health insurance	-		-

Medical aid	1.531 (0.860–2.723)	0.148	1.492 (0.823–2.704)	0.187

Income level

High (> 25th percentile)	-		-

Low (≤ 25th percentile)	0.991 (0.786–1.251)	0.942	0.980 (0.775–1.240)	0.867

mCCI score

0–1	-		-		-		-

≥ 2	1.578 (1.277–1.951)	< 0.001	1.580 (1.276–1.957)	< 0.001	1.421 (1.149–1.757)	0.001	1.460 (1.178–1.809)	0.001

Hysterectomy year

2012–2014	-		-

2015–2016	1.053 (0.819–1.354)	0.689	1.071 (0.831–1.380)	0.598

Risk group (adjuvant therapy)

Low risk	-		-		-		-

High risk	3.574 (2.890–4.421)	< 0.001	3.267 (2.634–4.052)	< 0.001	2.658 (2.136–3.309)	< 0.001	2.762 (2.221–3.434)	< 0.001

Geographical location

Metropolitan	-		-

Other	1.079 (0.864–1.347)	0.502	1.015 (0.809–1.272)	0.901

Table 1 Baseline characteristics for patients with endometrial cancer

Values are presented as number (%). LS, laparoscopic surgery; mCCI, modified Charlson Comorbidity Index; OS, open surgery; RS, robotic surgery

Table 2 Hospital stay and postoperativecomplications

Values are presented as number (%) unless otherwise indicated. LS, laparoscopic surgery; OS, open surgery; RS, robotic surgery; SD, standard deviation.

Table 3 Cost of endometrial cancer-related outpatient and ER visits after operation

Values are presented as mean (range) or mean±SD. ER, emergent room; LS, laparoscopic surgery; OS, open surgery; RS, robotic surgery; SD, standard deviation; USD, U.S. dollar.