OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of robotic microsurgical tubal anastomosis and compare the results and cost effectiveness with the same procedure performed by laparotomy. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENT(S): Patients with a history of bilateral tubal ligation who desired reversal for future fertility. INTERVENTION(S): Tubal anastomoses through either a robotic approach or through a laparotomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Operative times, hospitalization, complications, postoperative patency, clinical outcomes, and the cost per live birth. RESULT(S): The mean operative time for robotic anastomoses was statistically significantly greater than open anastomoses (ROBOT 201 minutes; OPEN 155.3 minutes), although hospitalization times were statistically significantly shorter (ROBOT 4 hours; OPEN 34.7 hours). The return to instrumental activities of daily living was accelerated in the patients who had undergone a robotic anastomosis (ROBOT 11.1 days; OPEN 28.1 days). Although this was a small series, the pregnancy rates were comparable between groups (ROBOT 62.5%; OPEN 50%), yet the rate of abnormal pregnancy was higher in the robotic group (ectopic: ROBOT 4, OPEN 1; spontaneous pregnancy loss: ROBOT 2, OPEN 1). The cost per delivery was similar between the groups (ROBOT $92,488.00, OPEN $92,205.90). CONCLUSION(S): Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis is feasible and cost effective with results that are comparable with the traditional open approach.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of robotic microsurgical tubal anastomosis and compare the results and cost effectiveness with the same procedure performed by laparotomy. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENT(S): Patients with a history of bilateral tubal ligation who desired reversal for future fertility. INTERVENTION(S): Tubal anastomoses through either a robotic approach or through a laparotomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Operative times, hospitalization, complications, postoperative patency, clinical outcomes, and the cost per live birth. RESULT(S): The mean operative time for robotic anastomoses was statistically significantly greater than open anastomoses (ROBOT 201 minutes; OPEN 155.3 minutes), although hospitalization times were statistically significantly shorter (ROBOT 4 hours; OPEN 34.7 hours). The return to instrumental activities of daily living was accelerated in the patients who had undergone a robotic anastomosis (ROBOT 11.1 days; OPEN 28.1 days). Although this was a small series, the pregnancy rates were comparable between groups (ROBOT 62.5%; OPEN 50%), yet the rate of abnormal pregnancy was higher in the robotic group (ectopic: ROBOT 4, OPEN 1; spontaneous pregnancy loss: ROBOT 2, OPEN 1). The cost per delivery was similar between the groups (ROBOT $92,488.00, OPEN $92,205.90). CONCLUSION(S): Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis is feasible and cost effective with results that are comparable with the traditional open approach.
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
Authors: Peter van Dam; Jan Hauspy; Luc Verkinderen; Xuan Bich Trinh; Pieter-Jan van Dam; Luc Van Looy; Luc Dirix Journal: Obstet Gynecol Int Date: 2011-09-18