目的：比较达芬奇机器人手术系统与传统腹腔镜在ⅠB1 期 ~ⅡA2 期宫颈癌根治术的临床疗效，并分 析影响术后并发症发生的相关危险因素。方法：回顾性分析 2014 年 12 月—2020 年 12 月郑州大学第一附属医院妇 科微创中心行机器人与传统腹腔镜手术治疗ⅠB1 期 ~ⅡA2 期宫颈癌患者的临床资料，根据手术方式不同分为机器人 组和传统腹腔镜组，比较两组患者的临床指标及术后并发症的严重程度，并对影响宫颈癌根治术术后并发症发生的 相关因素进行单因素（采用 χ 2 检验和 Fisher 确切概率法）和多因素（采用 Logistic 回归法）分析。结果：本研究共 纳入 374 例患者，其中机器人组 172 例，传统腹腔镜组 202 例，两组患者的一般临床资料无明显统计学差异。与传 统腹腔镜组相比，机器人手术平均手术时间及平均术后住院时间较短。机器人组 Clavien-Dindo Ⅲ级并发症的发生率 显著低于传统腹腔镜组。单因素分析结果提示年龄、BMI、合并内科疾病、手术方式是影响术后并发症发生的危险 因素。多因素分析结果提示年龄、BMI、合并内科疾病是影响术后并发症发生的独立危险因素。结论：与传统腹腔 镜手术相比，达芬奇机器人辅助腹腔镜手术治疗ⅠB1 期 ~ⅡA2 期宫颈癌的手术时间、术后住院时间短，严重并发症 发生率低。年龄、BMI、合并内科疾病是影响宫颈癌术后并发症发生的独立危险因素。

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of Da Vinci robotic surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery in treating stage ⅠB1-ⅡA2 cervical cancer, and to analyze the relevant risk factors that affect postoperative complications. Methods: The clinical data of patients with stage ⅠB1-ⅡA2 cervical cancer who underwent robotic and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from December 2014 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: A total of 374 patients were included in this study, including 172 cases in the robotic group and 202 cases in the conventional laparoscopic group. There was no significant difference in general clinical data between the two groups. The robotic group had the shorter average operative time and postoperative hospital stay than the conventional laparoscopic group. The incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade Ⅲ complications in the robotic group was significantly lower than that in the conventional laparoscopic group. Uunivariate analysis results indicated age, BMI, combined internal medicine diseases, and surgical methods were risk factors for postoperative complications. The results of multivariate analysis showed that age, BMI, and combined internal medicine diseases were independent risk factors for postoperative complications. Conclusion: Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, Da Vinci robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of stage ⅠB1-ⅡA2 cervical cancer has the less operative time, shorter length of hospital stay after surgery, and lower incidence of serious complications. Age, BMI, and combined internal medicine diseases are independent risk factors for postoperative complications of cervical cancer.

收稿日期：2022-05-06  录用日期：2022-12-09 

Received Date: 2022-05-06  Accepted Date: 2022-12-09 

基金项目：河南省高等学校重点科研项目（22A320063） 

Foundation Item: Key Scientific Research Project of Higher Education Institutions in Henan Province(22A320063) 

通讯作者：纪妹，Email：jimei0821@163.com 

Corresponding Author: JI Mei, Email: jimei0821@163.com 

引用格式：刘亚芬，纪妹，赵曌，等 . 机器人辅助手术与传统腹腔镜手术治疗ⅠB1~ⅡA2 期宫颈癌的比较及术后并发症的影响因素分析 [J]. 机器人外科学杂志（中英文），2023，4（5）：397-406. 

Citation: LIU Y F, JI M, ZHAO Z, et al. Comparison of robot-assisted Vs conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for stage ⅠB1-ⅡA2 cervical cancer and analysis on influencing factors of postoperative complications [J]. Chinese Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2023, 4(5): 397-406.

[1] Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R L, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249. 

[2] Daniel D, Nicolas D, Pierre-Alain C. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey[J]. Ann Surg, 2004, 240(2): 205-213. 

[3] Clavien P A, Sanabria J R, Strasberg S M. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy[J]. Surgery, 1992, 111(5): 518-526. 

[4] Alkatout I, Mettler L, Maass N, et al. Robotic surgery in gynecology[J]. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc, 2016, 17(4): 224-232. 

[5] Eamer G, Taheri A, Chen S S, et al. Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older people admitted to a surgical service[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2018, 1(1): CD012485. 

[6] 郄明蓉 , 段瑞岐 . 妇科术后患者发生静脉血栓的发 病原因分析及防治 [J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志 ( 电子版 ), 2014, 10(6): 723-727. 

[7] 王莹东 , 徐玲玲 , 滕悦 , 等 . 经自然腔道腹腔镜与 经脐单孔腹腔镜治疗肥胖患者卵巢囊肿的效果对 比 [J]. 中国临床保健杂志 , 2021, 24(2): 272-274. 

[8] Inci M G, Rasch J, Woopen H, et al. ECOG and BMI as preoperative risk factors for severe postoperative complications in ovarian cancer patients: results of a prospective study (RISC-GYN-trial)[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2021, 304(5): 1323-1333. 

[9] Martin E T, Kaye K S, Knott C, et al. Diabetes and risk of surgical site infection: a systematic review and Metaanalysis[J]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2016, 37(1): 88-99. 

[10] Temesgen N, Fenta E, Eshetie C, et al. Early intraoperative hypotension and its associated factors among surgical patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia: an observational study[J]. Ann Med Surg (Lond), 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102835. 

[11] Gallotta V, Conte C, Federico A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: a case matched control study[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2018, 44(6): 754-759. 

[12] ZHANG S S, TIAN D, CUI Z H, et al. Efficacy of robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer compared with that of open and laparoscopic surgery: a separate metaanalysis of high-quality studies[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2019, 98(4): e14171. 

[13] Oyama K, Kanno K, Kojima R, et al. Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a single-center study[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 2019, 45(2): 405-411. 

[14] JIN Y M, LIU S S, CHEN J, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy is superior to laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer [J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(3): e0193033. 

[15] Ramirez P T, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 379(20): 1895- 1904. 

[16] Melamed A, Margul D J, Chen L, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 379(20): 1905- 1914. 

[17] Cusimano M C, Baxter N N, Gien LT, et al. Impact of surgical approach on survival outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2019, 221(6): 619.e1-619.e24. 

[18] Alfonzo E, Wallin E, Ekdahl L, et al. No survival difference between robotic and open radical hysterectomy for women with early-stage cervical cancer: results from a nationwide population-based cohort study[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2019, 116(12): 169-177. 

[19] Jensen P T, Schnack T H, Frøding L P, et al. Survival after a nationwide adoption of robotic minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer- A populationbased study[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/ j.ejca.2019.12.020.