Literature DB >> 18439499

A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice.

Thomas N Payne1, Francis R Dauterive.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic practice and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy and robotic hysterectomy before and after implementation of a robotics program.
DESIGN: A retrospective chart review of the last 200 consecutive hysterectomy cases completed before and after implementation of a robotics program (Canadian Task Force classification III).
SETTING: Community hospital. PATIENTS: All patients requiring hysterectomy for benign indications between November 2004 and January 2007.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were candidates for total laparoscopic, abdominal, or vaginal hysterectomy before February 2006 and were candidates for total laparoscopic, total abdominal, total vaginal, or robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy after February 2006. Perioperative characteristics and trends were studied.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In all, 100 patients intended to be treated by laparoscopic hysterectomy before the implementation of a robotics program were compared with 100 patients treated by robotic hysterectomy after robot implementation. Overall the robotic cohort experienced longer operative times by an average of 27 minutes. The prerobotic cohort, however, when compared with the last 25 robotic cases had longer operative times (92.4 minutes [29.2], 95% CI 46.0-225.0 vs 78.7 minutes [29.5], 95% CI 66.0-91.2, p = .03). The mean blood loss in the prerobotic cohort was twice that of the robotic cohort (113 mL [85.9], 95% CI 95.9-130.1 vs 61.1 mL [60.9], 95% CI 48.9-73.2, p <.0001) and the mean length of hospital stay was half a day longer in the prerobotic cohort than in the robotic cohort (1.6 days [1.4], 95% CI 1.3-1.9 vs 1.1 days [0.7], 95% CI 1.0-1.3, p <.007). The incidence of adverse events was the same in both groups. The total number of exploratory laparotomies in the prerobotic cohort was significantly greater than in the robotic group (11% vs 0%). The rate of intraoperative conversions to total abdominal hysterectomy from laparoscopy was approximately 2-fold higher in the prerobotic cohort as compared with the robotic cohort (9% vs 4%).
CONCLUSION: A higher likelihood of exploratory laparotomy for hysterectomy in the prerobotic cohort versus the robotic cohort and a higher likelihood of intraoperative conversion to laparotomy with the prerobotic cohort than with the robotic cohort existed. Reduced operative time, reduced blood loss, and shortened length of stay may be achieved in patients who are treated robotically versus a nonrobotic approach. Robotics may facilitate the minimally invasive treatment of patients while potentially reducing the rate of abdominal hysterectomies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18439499     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.01.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  61 in total

Review 1.  Robot-assisted surgery:--impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  O E O'Sullivan; B A O'Reilly
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Survey of robotic surgery credentialing requirements for physicians completing OB/GYN residency.

Authors:  Britt K Erickson; Jonathan L Gleason; Warner K Huh; Holly E Richter
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 4.137

3.  Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass, is it Safer than Laparoscopic Bypass?

Authors:  Rena C Moon; Juan C Gutierrez; Nelson A Royall; Andre F Teixeira; Muhammad A Jawad
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.129

4.  Robotically assisted laparoscopy benefits surgical performance under stress.

Authors:  Lee J Moore; Mark R Wilson; Elizabeth Waine; John S McGrath; Rich S W Masters; Samuel J Vine
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-08-02

5.  Comparative assessment of physical and cognitive ergonomics associated with robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgeries.

Authors:  Gyusung I Lee; Mija R Lee; Tameka Clanton; Tamera Clanton; Erica Sutton; Adrian E Park; Michael R Marohn
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Perioperative outcomes of three-port robotically assisted hysterectomy: a continuous series of 53 cases.

Authors:  Patrick Dällenbach; Patrick Petignat
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2014-03-11

7.  A pilot study to assess the feasibility, safety and cost of robotic assisted total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

Authors:  Kankipati Shanti Raju; Andreas John Papadopoulos; Mohammad Shamim Khan; Prokar Dasgupta
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-05-12

8.  Does size matter? The effect of uterine weight on robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy outcomes.

Authors:  Mona E Orady; A Karim Nawfal; Ganesa Wegienka
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-05-13

9.  Robotic-assisted gynecologic/oncologic surgery: experience of early cases in a Saudi Arabian tertiary care facility.

Authors:  Ismail A Al-Badawi; Murad Al-Aker; Jamal Al-Subhi; Ibtihal Bukhari; Osama Al-Omar; Sarfraz Ahmad
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-05-29

10.  Preemptive multimodal analgesia facilitates same-day discharge following robot-assisted hysterectomy.

Authors:  Thomas M Shultz
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-05-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.