Use of uterine manipulator and uterine perforation in minimally invasive endometrial cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE

Safety of the uterine manipulator (UM) within endometrial cancer (EC) surgery is being questioned. Its use might be one of the issues for potential tumor dissemination during the procedure, especially in the case of uterine perforation (UP). No prospective data on this surgical complication, nor on the oncological consequences exist. The aim of this study was to assess the rate of UP while using UM when performing surgery for EC and the impact of UP on the choice of adjuvant treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective single-center cohort study from November 2018 to February 2022, considering all EC cases surgically treated by a minimally invasive approach with the help of a UM. Demographic, preoperative, postoperative and adjuvant treatment corresponding to the included patients were collected and comparatively analyzed according to the absence or presence of a UP.

RESULTS

Of the 82 patients included in the study, 9 UPs (11%) occurred during surgery. There was no significant difference in demographics and disease characteristics at diagnosis that may have induced UP. The type of UM used or the approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) did not influence the occurrence of UP (p = 0.44). No positive peritoneal cytology was found post hysterectomy. There was a statistically significantly higher rate of lymph-vascular space invasion within the perforation group, 67% vs. 25% in the no perforation group, p = 0.02. Two out of nine (22%) adjuvant therapies were changed because of UP. The median follow-up time for patients was 7.6 months (range 0.5-33.1 months). No recurrence was found in the UP group.

CONCLUSION

Our study found a uterine perforation rate of 11%. This information needs to be further integrated to consider the usefulness of MU for EC surgery.