Jeffrey M Goldberg1, Tommaso Falcone. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA. goldbej@ccf.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We previously reported our results with laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis with robotic assistance. The purpose of this study was to compare the duration of the procedure and hospitalization, blood loss and clinical outcomes for laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis performed with and without robotic assistance. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative case study in an academic tertiary referral centre. Laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis was performed on 10 women with robotic assistance and the subsequent 15 patients underwent the procedure without the robot. The length of the procedure, estimated blood loss (EBL), time until hospital discharge, tubal patency and clinical pregnancy rates were compared. RESULTS: The operative times were 2 h longer with robotic assistance (P < 0.001). The increased EBL with the use of the robot (70 +/- 68 ml versus 20 +/- 16 ml) was statistically but not clinically significant. The robot provided no benefit in patient recovery. Tubal patency and clinical pregnancy rates were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assistance increases operative times of laparoscopic tubal anastomosis without an appreciable improvement in patient recovery or clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: We previously reported our results with laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis with robotic assistance. The purpose of this study was to compare the duration of the procedure and hospitalization, blood loss and clinical outcomes for laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis performed with and without robotic assistance. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative case study in an academic tertiary referral centre. Laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis was performed on 10 women with robotic assistance and the subsequent 15 patients underwent the procedure without the robot. The length of the procedure, estimated blood loss (EBL), time until hospital discharge, tubal patency and clinical pregnancy rates were compared. RESULTS: The operative times were 2 h longer with robotic assistance (P < 0.001). The increased EBL with the use of the robot (70 +/- 68 ml versus 20 +/- 16 ml) was statistically but not clinically significant. The robot provided no benefit in patient recovery. Tubal patency and clinical pregnancy rates were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assistance increases operative times of laparoscopic tubal anastomosis without an appreciable improvement in patient recovery or clinical outcomes.
Authors: Lauren B Messinger; Connie E Alford; John M Csokmay; Melinda B Henne; Sunni L Mumford; James H Segars; Alicia Y Armstrong Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 7.329