Literature DB >> 21055514

Evaluation of the introduction of robotic technology on route of hysterectomy and complications in the first year of use.

Catherine A Matthews1, Natasha Reid, Viswanathan Ramakrishnan, Kathryn Hull, Stephen Cohen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the differential rates and complications of hysterectomy type in the year prior to and following the introduction of robotic technology. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a retrospective chart review of 461 hysterectomies performed from July 2007 through June 2008 (period 1) and July 2008 through June 2009 (period 2) at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center.
RESULTS: In all, 199 vs 262 hysterectomies were performed in periods 1 and 2: open, 52.3% vs 43.1%; laparoscopic, 18.1% vs 8.0%; robotic, 2.5% vs 24.8%; and vaginal, 27.4% vs 24.1%, respectively. The increase in robotic hysterectomies in period 2 was associated only with a decline in laparoscopic hysterectomy (P < .0001). Major morbidity by route was 23.04% open, 11/1% vaginal, 7.02% laparoscopic, and 4.29% robotic (P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: Route of hysterectomy changed significantly after the introduction of robotic technology primarily due to a change in management of pelvic organ prolapse. Open hysterectomy was associated with significantly higher complication rates.
Copyright © 2010. Published by Mosby, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21055514     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.07.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  10 in total

1.  The promise of robotics in urogynecology.

Authors:  Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  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

3.  Analysis of postoperative pain in robotic versus traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Raymond E Betcher; James P Chaney; Pamela R Lacy; Stephen K Otey; Duke J Wood
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2013-07-03

4.  An analysis of the impact of previous laparoscopic hysterectomy experience on the learning curve for robotic hysterectomy.

Authors:  A Eddib; N Jain; M Aalto; S Hughes; A Eswar; M Erk; C Michalik; V Krovi; P Singhal
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2013-02-27

5.  Progressive reduction in abdominal hysterectomy rates: impact of laparoscopy, robotics and surgeon factors.

Authors:  Michael Moen; Michael Noone; Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh; Brett Vassallo; Brian Locker; Charles Miller
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2013-06-11

6.  Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review.

Authors:  Lori Weinberg; Sanjay Rao; Pedro F Escobar
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2011-11-28

7.  Minimally invasive specialists and rates of laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Megan Loring; Stephanie N Morris; Keith B Isaacson
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

8.  Robotically assisted gynecologic surgery: 2-year experience in the French foch hospital.

Authors:  Julie Goetgheluck; Marie Carbonnel; Jean Marc Ayoubi
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2014-05-05

Review 9.  Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology-The Future Is Here.

Authors:  Roy Lauterbach; Emad Matanes; Lior Lowenstein
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2017-04-28

10.  Robotically Assisted Hysterectomy versus Vaginal Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  M Carbonnel; H Abbou; H T N'guyen; S Roy; G Hamdi; A Jnifen; J M Ayoubi
Journal:  Minim Invasive Surg       Date:  2013-07-07
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.