4.1 Article

Comparison of Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy to Other Minimally Invasive Approaches

Journal

Publisher

SOC LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS
DOI: 10.4293/108680812X13462882736899

Keywords

Robotic surgery; Hysterectomy; Robotic hysterectomy; Laparoscopic; Laparoscopic hysterectomy; Vaginal hysterectomy; Minimally invasive surgical procedures

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy (RH) to other minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH) types, including total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), and vaginal hysterectomy (VH). Methods: Retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent RH or MIH for benign indications between January 2007 and May 2010 at 2 Henry Ford Health System teaching hospitals. Age, race, body mass index (BMI), procedure duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), peri-operative hemoglobin change, uterine weight, length of hospital stay (LOS), and complications were collected from electronic medical records and were compared between RH and MIH groups. Results: Included in the analysis were 135 RH and 162 MIH cases (n = 34 VH, n = 82 LAVH, n = 46 TLH). There were no differences in age, race, or BMI between groups, but RH patients had significantly larger uteri (P = .007; RH, 13.5%>500g; MIH 4.0%>500g). MIH patients had significantly greater EBL (P < .001) and drop in hemoglobin (P = .02) than RH patients with a 150 ml difference in median EBL (200 mL versus 50 mL) between groups. RH had longer procedure durations than MIH (P = .0002) overall, but not compared to the TLH subgroup. RH patients had a shorter LOS than MIH patients had (P = .02) who had a longer LOS for LAVH patients. Although readmission and major complication rates were similar in both groups, minor adverse events occurred more frequently in the MIH group (21.6%) than the RH group (8.9%) (P = .003). Conclusion: RH has comparable surgical outcomes, and possibly decreased blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer minor complications than other methods of MIH.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available