TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of ArtiSential and Conventional Laparoscopic Instruments in Hysterectomy for Gynecologic Cancers
T2 - A Hybrid Observational Study on Surgical Outcomes, Pain Control, and Oncologic Safety
AU - Lim, Seongyun
AU - Chung, Young Eun
AU - Seo, Jun Hyeong
AU - Choi, Chel Hun
AU - Kato, Kazuyoshi
AU - Lee, Yi Liang
AU - Chen, Yu Li
AU - Lee, Yooyoung
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 AAGL
PY - 2025/11
Y1 - 2025/11
N2 - Objective: To evaluate the clinical and oncologic outcomes of gynecologic cancer surgeries performed using multi-joint laparoscopic instruments (ArtiSential) compared to conventional instruments, focusing on hysterectomy. Design: A hybrid observational study combining prospective data for the ArtiSential group (n = 44) and retrospective data for the conventional group (n = 136). Setting: International multicenter study conducted in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. Participants: 180 patients who underwent hysterectomy for gynecological cancers. Interventions: Laparoscopic hysterectomy using either ArtiSential or conventional laparoscopic instruments. Results: No significant differences were observed in operative time (100.1 min vs. 99.7 min, p = .95) or estimated blood loss (111.6 mL vs. 125.0 mL, p = .39) between the ArtiSential and conventional groups. The ArtiSential group showed numerical reduction in moderate-to-severe postoperative pain without statistical significance in total group (6.8% vs. 18.4%, p = .09), but a statistically significant reduction in uterine cancer patients (3.6% vs. 21.4%, p = .04). Complication rates were generally lower in the ArtiSential group across all cancer types, although not statistically significant. In radical hysterectomy, the ArtiSential group demonstrated shorter operative times (109.2 min vs. 135.9 min, p = .14) and reduced estimated blood loss (150.0 mL vs. 162.9 mL, p = .75). Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that FIGO stage, operative time, and estimated blood loss significantly affected progression-free survival in uterine cancer, while ArtiSential use did not (p = .47) Conclusions: ArtiSential instruments appear to be feasible for gynecological cancer surgeries, offering potential benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and fewer complications but without statistical significance. While these findings highlight the utility of ArtiSential in complex pelvic surgeries, further prospective multicenter studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are required to confirm oncologic safety and long-term complication.
AB - Objective: To evaluate the clinical and oncologic outcomes of gynecologic cancer surgeries performed using multi-joint laparoscopic instruments (ArtiSential) compared to conventional instruments, focusing on hysterectomy. Design: A hybrid observational study combining prospective data for the ArtiSential group (n = 44) and retrospective data for the conventional group (n = 136). Setting: International multicenter study conducted in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. Participants: 180 patients who underwent hysterectomy for gynecological cancers. Interventions: Laparoscopic hysterectomy using either ArtiSential or conventional laparoscopic instruments. Results: No significant differences were observed in operative time (100.1 min vs. 99.7 min, p = .95) or estimated blood loss (111.6 mL vs. 125.0 mL, p = .39) between the ArtiSential and conventional groups. The ArtiSential group showed numerical reduction in moderate-to-severe postoperative pain without statistical significance in total group (6.8% vs. 18.4%, p = .09), but a statistically significant reduction in uterine cancer patients (3.6% vs. 21.4%, p = .04). Complication rates were generally lower in the ArtiSential group across all cancer types, although not statistically significant. In radical hysterectomy, the ArtiSential group demonstrated shorter operative times (109.2 min vs. 135.9 min, p = .14) and reduced estimated blood loss (150.0 mL vs. 162.9 mL, p = .75). Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that FIGO stage, operative time, and estimated blood loss significantly affected progression-free survival in uterine cancer, while ArtiSential use did not (p = .47) Conclusions: ArtiSential instruments appear to be feasible for gynecological cancer surgeries, offering potential benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and fewer complications but without statistical significance. While these findings highlight the utility of ArtiSential in complex pelvic surgeries, further prospective multicenter studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are required to confirm oncologic safety and long-term complication.
KW - Articulating instruments
KW - Minimally invasive surgery
KW - Multi-joint laparoscopic instrument
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105015090031
U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2025.07.021
DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2025.07.021
M3 - Article
C2 - 40730329
AN - SCOPUS:105015090031
SN - 1553-4650
VL - 32
SP - 1011
EP - 1019
JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
IS - 11
ER -