目的：探讨机器人辅助手术治疗子宫内膜癌的安全性及可行性。方法：回顾性分析 2020 年 7 月—2023 年 6 月因子宫 内膜癌于贵港市人民医院妇科行子宫内膜癌分期手术的 232 例患者的临床资料，其中开腹手术组（ORH 组）74 例，腹腔镜 手术组（LRH 组）66 例，机器人辅助腹腔镜手术组（RRH 组）92 例，比较三组患者的围手术期相关指标。结果：三组患者 手术时长、术中出血量、术中输血量、住院时长、手术费用、盆腔淋巴结切除个数及手术并发症发生率比较，差异均有统计 学意义（P<0.05），腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除个数比较，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。LRH 组手术时长短于 ORH 组及 RRH 组，RRH 组术中出血量少于 ORH 组及 LRH 组，ORH 组术中输血量、住院时长、术后感染和切口愈合不良发生率高于 LRH 组及 RRH 组，RRH 组手术费用高于 ORH 组及 LRH 组。结论：与开腹手术及传统腹腔镜手术相比，机器人辅助腹腔镜手术 用于子宫内膜癌治疗是可行、安全的，但仍需更大样本量的研究进一步验证该结果。

Objective: To explore the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted surgery for endometrial carcinoma. Methods: Clinical data of 232 patients who underwent staging surgery for endometrial carcinoma in the Department of Gynecology, Guigang City People’s Hospital from July 2020 to June 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into the open radical hysterectomy group (ORH group, n=74), the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group (LRH group, n=66) and the robot-assisted radical hysterectomy group (RRH group, n=92) according to different surgical approaches. The perioperative indicators of patients in the three groups were compared. Results: Differences in the operative time, intraoperative bleeding, intraoperative blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, surgical cost, number of dissected pelvic lymph nodes and incidence of surgical complications among the three groups of patients were statistically significant (P<0.05), but differences in the number of dissected para-abdominal aortic lymph nodes were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The operative time in the LRH group was shorter than those in the ORH and RRH groups. Intraoperative bleedings in the RRH group were less than those in the ORH and LRH groups. Intraoperative blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, postoperative infections, and incidence of poor healing of surgical incision were higher in the ORH group than those in the LRH and RRH groups, and the cost of surgery in the RRH group was higher than those in the ORH and LRH groups. Conclusion: Compared with open surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is feasible and safe in the treatment of endometrial carcinoma, but studies with larger sample sizes are needed to further validate this result.

基金项目：贵港市自筹经费科研项目（2100031） 

Foundation Item: Self-financed Scientific Research Project of Guigang City (2100031) 

引用格式：陆媛媛，陈静平，韦任姬，等 . 机器人辅助手术治疗子宫内膜癌的临床疗效研究 [J]. 机器人外科学杂志（中英文），2025，6（3）： 435-439. 

Citation: LU Y Y, CHEN J P, WEI R J, et al. Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted surgery for endometrial carcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of  Robotic Surgery, 2025,6(3): 435-439. 

通讯作者（Corresponding Author）：陈静平（CHEN Jingping），Email：362042473@163.com

目的：探讨机器人辅助手术治疗子宫内膜癌的安全性及可行性。方法：回顾性分析 2020 年 7 月—2023 年 6 月因子宫 内膜癌于贵港市人民医院妇科行子宫内膜癌分期手术的 232 例患者的临床资料，其中开腹手术组（ORH 组）74 例，腹腔镜 手术组（LRH 组）66 例，机器人辅助腹腔镜手术组（RRH 组）92 例，比较三组患者的围手术期相关指标。结果：三组患者 手术时长、术中出血量、术中输血量、住院时长、手术费用、盆腔淋巴结切除个数及手术并发症发生率比较，差异均有统计 学意义（P<0.05），腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除个数比较，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。LRH 组手术时长短于 ORH 组及 RRH 组，RRH 组术中出血量少于 ORH 组及 LRH 组，ORH 组术中输血量、住院时长、术后感染和切口愈合不良发生率高于 LRH 组及 RRH 组，RRH 组手术费用高于 ORH 组及 LRH 组。结论：与开腹手术及传统腹腔镜手术相比，机器人辅助腹腔镜手术 用于子宫内膜癌治疗是可行、安全的，但仍需更大样本量的研究进一步验证该结果。

Objective: To explore the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted surgery for endometrial carcinoma. Methods: Clinical data of 232 patients who underwent staging surgery for endometrial carcinoma in the Department of Gynecology, Guigang City People’s Hospital from July 2020 to June 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into the open radical hysterectomy group (ORH group, n=74), the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy group (LRH group, n=66) and the robot-assisted radical hysterectomy group (RRH group, n=92) according to different surgical approaches. The perioperative indicators of patients in the three groups were compared. Results: Differences in the operative time, intraoperative bleeding, intraoperative blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, surgical cost, number of dissected pelvic lymph nodes and incidence of surgical complications among the three groups of patients were statistically significant (P<0.05), but differences in the number of dissected para-abdominal aortic lymph nodes were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The operative time in the LRH group was shorter than those in the ORH and RRH groups. Intraoperative bleedings in the RRH group were less than those in the ORH and LRH groups. Intraoperative blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, postoperative infections, and incidence of poor healing of surgical incision were higher in the ORH group than those in the LRH and RRH groups, and the cost of surgery in the RRH group was higher than those in the ORH and LRH groups. Conclusion: Compared with open surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is feasible and safe in the treatment of endometrial carcinoma, but studies with larger sample sizes are needed to further validate this result.