Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: is there a correlation between uterine diameters, pelvic volume, and surgical outcomes?

Hysterectomy could be performed through a vaginal approach, laparotomy, or laparoscopy. Robotic surgery is a technique that can be defined as a particular type of laparoscopy, often used in interventions where microsurgery can help improve radicality and effectiveness. In choosing patients for the robotic technique, many characteristics could be studied to tailor the surgical choice. Our aim is to describe the anthropomorphic and radiological parameters linked to worse surgical outcomes for the potential stratification of patients in the preoperative decision about the type of surgery. In our center, the AOU Maggiore della Carità Hospital in Novara (Italy), 104 patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer and candidated for total hysterectomy, with various degrees of radicality, underwent robotic surgery. Patients’ anthropomorphic parameters, such as body mass index, and radiological imaging such as uterine size and pelvis diameter, were compared with the surgical outcomes such as operating times, complications as blood loss, subsequent emergency room visits, and the possible need for laparotomy conversion. Our ratios between pelvic depth and uterine anteroposterior diameter (PD/UAP) and between uterine volume and pelvic volume index (UV/PCI) showed statistically significant correlations with surgical time. Similar content being viewed by others

Colombo N, Creutzberg C, Amant F, Bosse T, Gonzalez-Martin A, Ledermann J, Marth C, Nout R, Querleu D, Mirza MR, Sessa C (2016) ESMO-ESGO-ESTRO Conference Consensus n Endometrial Cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 27(1):16–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv484 Aquino CI, Venkatesan S, Ligori A, Tinelli R, Grossini E, Surico D (2025) Osteopontin expression and its role in endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Cancers (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17132245 Aquino CI, Stampini V, Osella E, Troia L, Rocca C, Guida M, Faggiano F, Remorgida V, Surico D (2024) Menopausal hormone therapy, an ever-present topic: a pilot survey about women’s experience and medical doctors’ approach. Medicina (Kaunas). https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60050774 Aquino CI, Nicosia A, Ligori A, Volpicelli AI, Surico D (2024) Microbiota status and endometrial cancer: a narrative review about possible correlations in affected versus healthy patients. Sci 6(4):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6040075 Aquino CI, Troisi J, D’Antonio A, Giugliano L, Raffone A, Sarno L, Guida M (2019) Endometrial carcinoma and bisphenol A: a pilot case-control study. Biomed J Scient Tech Res 21(1):16073–16079. https://doi.org/10.26717/BJSTR.2019.21.003641 Savelli L, Ceccarini M, Ludovisi M, Fruscella E, De Iaco PA, Salizzoni E, Mabrouk M, Manfredi R, Testa AC, Ferrandina G (2008) Preoperative local staging of endometrial cancer: transvaginal sonography vs. magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31(5):560–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5295 Aquino CI, Surico D, Miglino F, Ligori A, Ferrante D, Remorgida V (2025) Perma curette and hysteroscopy: an observational study about endometrial sampling. Biomedicines. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines13051113 Manfredi R, Mirk P, Maresca G, Margariti PA, Testa A, Zannoni GF, Giordano D, Scambia G, Marano P (2004) Local-regional staging of endometrial carcinoma: role of MR imaging in surgical planning. Radiology 231(2):372–378. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2312021184 Expert Panel on, G. Y. N., Imaging, O. B., Reinhold C, Ueno Y, Akin EA, Bhosale PR, Dudiak KM, Jhingran A, Kang SK, Kilcoyne A, Lakhman Y, Nicola R, Pandharipande PV, Paspulati R, Shinagare AB, Small W Jr., Vargas HA, Whitcomb BP, Glanc P (2020) ACR appropriateness criteria(r) pretreatment evaluation and follow-up of endometrial cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 17(11S):S472–S486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2020.09.001 Abu-Rustum N, Yashar C, Arend R, Barber E, Bradley K, Brooks R, Campos SM, Chino J, Chon HS, Chu C, Crispens MA, Damast S, Fisher CM, Frederick P, Gaffney DK, Giuntoli R, Han E, Holmes J, Howitt BE, Aggarwal S (2023) Uterine neoplasms, version 1.2023, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 21(2):181–209. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2023.0006 Nougaret S, Horta M, Sala E, Lakhman Y, Thomassin-Naggara I, Kido A, Masselli G, Bharwani N, Sadowski E, Ertmer A, Otero-Garcia M, Kubik-Huch RA, Cunha TM, Rockall A, Forstner R (2019) Endometrial cancer MRI staging: updated guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol 29(2):792–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5515-y Ioana JTM, Voita-Mekeres F, Motofelea AC, Ciprian D, Fulger L, Alexandru I, Tarta C, Stelian P, Bernad ES, Teodora H (2024) Surgical outcomes in laparoscopic hysterectomy, robotic-assisted, and laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy for uterine and cervical cancers: a systematic review. Diagnostics. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14242782 Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica. (2021). Neoplasie dell’utero: endometrio e cervice – Linee guida AIOM 2021 (Aggiornamento agosto 2021). https://www.aiom.it/linee-guida-aiom-tumori-dellutero-endometrio-e-cervice/ Marchocki Z, Cusimano MC, Clarfield L, Kim SR, Fazelzad R, Espin-Garcia O, Bouchard-Fortier G, Rossi EC, Stewart KI, Soliman PT, How JA, Gotlieb WH, Holloway RW, Ianieri MM, Cabrera S, Lim YK, Ferguson SE (2021) Sentinel lymph node biopsy in high-grade endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of performance characteristics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 225(4):361–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.05.034 Zhai L, Zhang X, Cui M, Wang J (2021) Sentinel lymph node mapping in endometrial cancer: a comprehensive review. Front Oncol 11:701758. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.701758 Sinno AK, Fader AN (2014) Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology. Fertil Steril 102(4):922–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.08.020 Alkatout I, Mettler L, Maass N, Ackermann J (2016) Robotic surgery in gynecology. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 17(4):224–232. https://doi.org/10.5152/jtgga.2016.16187 Bankar GR, Keoliya A (2022) Robot-Assisted Surgery in Gynecology. Cureus 14(9):e29190. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.29190 Ind T, Laios A, Hacking M, Nobbenhuis M (2017) A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1851 Kakkos A, Ver Eecke C, Ongaro S, Traen K, Peeters F, Van Trappen P, Laenen A, Despierre E, Van Nieuwenhuysen E, Vergote I, Goffin F (2021) Robot-assisted surgery for women with endometrial cancer: surgical and oncologic outcomes within a Belgium gynaecological oncology group cohort. Eur J Surg Oncol 47(5):1117–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.10.005 Yao A, Iwamoto H, Masago T, Morizane S, Honda M, Sejima T, Takenaka A (2015) Anatomical dimensions using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging: impact on the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Int J Urol 22(1):74–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12602 Chen J, Chu T, Ghodoussipour S, Bowman S, Patel H, King K, Hung AJ (2019) Effect of surgeon experience and bony pelvic dimensions on surgical performance and patient outcomes in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 124(5):828–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14857 Yilmaz K, Aktas Y, Olcucu MT, Aksaray EE, Cakir S, Ates M (2022) Effect of prostate and bony pelvic dimensions measured by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg 16(6):1483–1489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01402-z Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK (2009) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27(32):5331–5336. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248 Cusimano MC, Simpson AN, Dossa F, Liani V, Kaur Y, Acuna SA, Robertson D, Satkunaratnam A, Bernardini MQ, Ferguson SE, Baxter NN (2019) Laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy in endometrial cancer patients with obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of conversions and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 221(5):410–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.05.004 Uchida T, Higure T, Kawakami M, Nakano M, Nakajima N, Kim H, Nitta M, Hasegawa M, Kawamura Y, Shoji S, Miyajima A (2021) What factors affect the operative time of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? Surg Endosc 35(8):4436–4443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07946-1 Hong JS, Brown KGM, Waller J, Young CJ, Solomon MJ (2020) The role of MRI pelvimetry in predicting technical difficulty and outcomes of open and minimally invasive total mesorectal excision: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol 24(10):991–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02274-x Simpson G, Marks T, Blacker S, Smith D, Walsh C (2020) Sacrococcygeal dimensions and curvature are associated with resection quality in rectal cancer excision. Tech Coloproctol 24(10):1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02273-y https://www.equator-network.org accessed online on date 02/08/2025 Pecorelli S (2009) Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the vulva, cervix, and endometrium. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 105(2):103–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.02.012 Kandoth N, Schultz C, Cherniack N, Akbani AD, Liu R, Shen Y, Robertson H, Pashtan AG, Shen I, Benz R, Yau CC, Laird C, Ding PW, Zhang L, Mills W, Kucherlapati GB, Mardis R, E. R., & Levine, D. A. (2013) Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 497(7447):67–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12113 Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae Mereu L, Berlanda V, Surico D, Gardella B, Pertile R, Spinillo A, Tateo S (2020) Evaluation of quality of life, body image and surgical outcomes of robotic total laparoscopic hysterectomy and sentinel lymph node mapping in low-risk endometrial cancer patients - a Robotic Gyne Club study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 99(9):1238–1245. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13844 Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, de Haes JC et al (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(5):365–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 Gitas G, Alkatout I, Proppe L, Hanker L, Allahqoli L, Grimbizis G, Rody A, Werner N, Sommer S, Baum S (2022) Long-term satisfaction of patients after laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 305(6):1481–1490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06360-9 Martinelli F, Ditto A, Signorelli M, Bogani G, Chiappa V, Lorusso D, Scaffa C, Recalcati D, Perotto S, Haeusler E, Raspagliesi F (2017) Sentinel node mapping in endometrial cancer following hysteroscopic injection of tracers: a single center evaluation over 200 cases. Gynecol Oncol 146(3):525–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.06.014 Capozzi VA, Rosati A, Rumolo V, Ferrari F, Gullo G, Karaman E, Karaaslan O, HacioĞlu L (2021) Novelties of ultrasound imaging for endometrial cancer preoperative workup. Minerva Med 112(1):3–11. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.20.07125-6 Billone V, Gullo G, Conti E, Ganduscio S, Burgio S, Baglio G, Cucinella G, De Paola L, Marinelli S (2025) Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: insights from a single-center retrospective cohort study with legal considerations. Medicina (Kaunas) 61(7):1216. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61071216 Billone V, Gullo G, Perino G, Catania E, Cucinella G, Ganduscio S, Vassiliadis A, Zaami S (2024) Robotic versus mini-laparoscopic colposacropexy to treat pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective observational cohort study and a medicolegal perspective. J Clin Med 13(16):4802. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13164802 Billone V, De Paola L, Conti E, Borsellino L, Kozinszky Z, Giampaolino P, Suranyi A, Della Corte L, Andrisani A, Cucinella G, Marinelli S, Gullo G (2025) Sentinel lymph node in endometrial hyperplasia: state of the art and future perspectives. Cancers (Basel) 17(5):776. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17050776 De Paola L, Napoletano G, Gullo G, Circosta F, Montanari Vergallo G, Marinelli S (2025) The era of increasing cancer survivorship: trends in fertility preservation, medico-legal implications, and ethical challenges. Open Med 20(1):20251144. https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2025-1144 Papatheodorou A, Vanderzwalmen P, Panagiotidis Y, Petousis S, Gullo G, Kasapi E, Goudakou M, Prapas N, Zikopoulos K, Georgiou I, Prapas Y (2016) How does closed system vitrification of human oocytes affect the clinical outcome? A prospective, observational, cohort, noninferiority trial in an oocyte donation program. Fertil Steril 106(6):1348–1355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.1066 Finan MA, Harris JA, Fisher AM, Bradley K, Henslee H, Rocconi RP (2012) Magnetic resonance or computerized tomography imaging to predict difficulty of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer. J Robot Surg 6(2):131–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-011-0281-8 Mothes AR, Kather A, Cepraga I, Esber A, Kwetkat A, Runnebaum IB (2023) Robotic-assisted gynecological surgery in older patients – a comparative cohort study of perioperative outcomes. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 83(4):437–445. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1902-4577 Zhang X, Hou A, Cao J, Liu Y, Lou J, Li H, Ma Y, Song Y, Mi W, Liu J (2022) Association of diabetes mellitus with postoperative complications and mortality after non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 13:841256. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.841256 Perutelli A, Domenici L, Garibaldi S, Albanesi G, Baroni C, Salvati L, Salvati N, Cecchi E, Bottone P, Salerno MG (2022) Efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted surgery in challenging hysterectomies - a single institutional experience. Euro Rev For Med Pharmacol Sci. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202202_28115 Burke WM, Gossner G, Goldman NA (2011) Robotic surgery in the obese gynecologic patient. Clin Obstet Gynecol 54(3):420–430. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e31822b37b1 Gracia M, Garcia-Santos J, Ramirez M, Bellon M, Herraiz MA, Coronado PJ (2020) Value of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer by body mass index. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 150(3):398–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13258 Movilla P, Orlando M, Wang J, Opoku-Anane J (2020) Predictors of prolonged operative time for robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: development of a preoperative calculator for total operative time. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 27(3):646–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.04.019 Restaino S, Paparcura F, Arcieri M, Pellecchia G, Poli A, Gallotta V, Gueli Alletti S, Cianci S, Capozzi VA, Bogani G, Lucidi A, Klarić M, Driul L, Chiantera V, Dal Moro F, Scambia G, Vizzielli G (2024) Employing the aviation model to reduce errors in robotic gynecological surgery: a narrative review. Healthcare 12(16):1614. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12161614 Arcieri M, Paparcura F, Giorgiutti C, Taliento C, Bogani G, Driul L, Greco P, Ercoli A, Chiantera V, Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Scambia G, Mariani A, Restaino S, Vizzielli G (2025) Robotic surgery in severely obese frail patients for the treatment of atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer: a propensity-match analysis at an ESGO-accredited center. Cancers (Basel) 17(3):482. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17030482 Bogani G et al. EJSO. 2025—Outcomes of minimally invasive surgery in the “oldest old” EC patients Gallotta V, Conte C, D’Indinosante M, Federico A, Biscione A, Vizzielli G, Ferrandina G (2018) Robotic surgery in elderly and very elderly gynecologic cancer patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 25(5):872–877 Vizza E, Giannini A, Bruno V, Baiocco E, Mancini E, Vizza R, Uccella S, Raspagliesi F, Bogani G (2025) Robotic-assisted single-port and multi-port surgical staging in early-stage endometrial cancer: a propensity matched comparison. Eur J Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2025.110269 Funding This research did not receive external funding. Author information Authors and Affiliations Contributions Conceptualization, D.S., V.R., C.I.A., and A.L.; methodology, D.S., V.R., and C.I.A.; validation, D.S., V.R., and C.I.A.; formal analysis, D.S., D.F., S.B., and C.I.A.; investigation, B.B. and S.B.; data curation, B.B., S.B., and C.I.A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.S., C.I.A., and B.B.; writing—review and editing, D.S. and C.I.A.; visualization, D.S., V.R., A.V., and C.I.A.; supervision, V.R. and D.S.; project administration, D.S. and C.I.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflicts of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Institutional review board This study was carried out according to the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of AOU Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy (Protocol number N. CE023/2023, 106.055, on date 25/01/2023). Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Supplementary Information Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Rights and permissions Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. About this article Cite this article Surico, D., Aquino, C.I., Vigone, A. et al. Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: is there a correlation between uterine diameters, pelvic volume, and surgical outcomes?. J Robotic Surg 19, 661 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02820-5 Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02820-5