Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026
Thermal Ablation for the Treatment of Abdominal Tumors
Published on: March 7, 2011
Robotic cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: is there a benefit?
Brian K Sparkman1, Devon C Freudenberger1, Vignesh Vudatha1
1Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, 1200 E Broad St, PO Box 980011, Richmond, VA, 23219, USA.
Background:
Open cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a therapeutic option for the management of malignancies with peritoneal carcinomatosis and of peritoneal origin. Robotic surgery shows promise as a minimally invasive approach for select patients. We aimed to evaluate the differences in outcomes between robotic versus open CRS/HIPEC and hypothesized less morbidity and faster recovery in the robotic approach group.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective cohort study from our HIPEC database including all tumor origins. We included patients aged 18-89 years who underwent CRS/HIPEC for curative intent at a single institution between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2023. Patients were stratified by open versus robotic-assisted surgery. Mann-Whitney U and Fisher Exact tests were used to compare differences in patient characteristics and outcomes.
Results:
A total of 111 patients underwent CRS/HIPEC for curative intent, with 95 (85.6%) cases performed open and 16 (14.4%) robotically. The groups were demographically similar, except patients undergoing robotic CRS/HIPEC had a significantly higher median income ($83,845 vs. $70,519, p < 0.001). Rate of comorbidities and cancer type, including appendiceal, colorectal, and ovarian, were the same. The peritoneal carcinomatosis index and completion of cytoreduction score were similar between groups. Robotic approach was associated with statistically significant lower estimated blood loss (113 vs. 400 mL, p < 0.001) and postoperative transfusions (6.3% vs. 23.2%, p = 0.036). Total complications, readmission rates, and 30-day mortality were similar among groups, but the robotic group had a significantly shorter length of stay (5.5 vs. 9 d., p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
Robotic CRS/HIPEC holds promise to decrease intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusions, and hospital stay while providing similar immediate postoperative outcomes in select patients. These results should be validated in the setting of a prospective trial and effects on long-term oncologic outcomes should be investigated.
