Literature DB >> 21666467

Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies.

Dimitri Sarlos1, LaVonne A Kots.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To illustrate the current stand on robotic versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy regarding operating times, clinical outcome and costs. RECENT
FINDINGS: Only six studies were reviewed, as there are only few recent studies comparing robotic with laparoscopic hysterectomy and most are retrospective. Apart from one multicentre study with over 36  000 patients, 350 institutions and numerous surgeons, most studies were performed with few cases by one or two surgeons at one or two hospitals. Operating times for robotic hysterectomies generally were longer, ranging from 89.9 to 267  min. Surgery time for conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies was between 83 and 206  min. In all studies, clinical outcomes such as blood loss, complications or hospital stay of both the robotic and the conventional laparoscopic procedure were similar. Only two studies compared costs and both came up with very similar findings. Cost for a robot-assisted hysterectomy is approximately 2600 USD higher than that for conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy not including investment and amortization.
SUMMARY: Robotic and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy are essentially equivalent regarding surgical and clinical outcome. Operating times are slightly higher and costs are significantly higher for the robotic procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21666467     DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e328348a26e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 1040-872X            Impact factor:   1.927


  17 in total

1.  The end of robot-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Jeroen Heemskerk; Nicole D Bouvy; Cor G M I Baeten
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  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

3.  Opportunity cost in the economic evaluation of da Vinci robotic assisted surgery.

Authors:  Fernando Fuertes-Guiró; Montserrat Girabent-Farrés; Eduardo Viteri-Velasco
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-03-06

4.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: operative times and efficiency in a high-volume female pelvic medicine and laparoscopic surgery practice.

Authors:  Robert Moore; Christopher Moriarty; Orawee Chinthakanan; John Miklos
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Comparison of cost and operative outcomes of robotic hysterectomy compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy across different uterine weights.

Authors:  Gaby N Moawad; Elias D Abi Khalil; Paul Tyan; Michael K Shu; David Samuel; Richard Amdur; Stacey A Scheib; Cherie Q Marfori
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-01-31

Review 6.  Uterine fibroids and current clinical challenges.

Authors:  Salama S Salama; Gökhan S Kılıç
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2013-03-01

7.  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

8.  Robot-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: two cases.

Authors:  Pierre Collinet; Manuel Ascencio; Jean-Philippe Lucot; Michel Cosson
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-10-25

9.  Clinical comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy procedures for endometrial cancer patients.

Authors:  Lynette Johnson; W Douglas Bunn; Loan Nguyen; Jessica Rice; Minakshi Raj; Mary J Cunningham
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-11-03

10.  Comparative effectiveness of robotically assisted compared with laparoscopic adnexal surgery for benign gynecologic disease.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Alessandra Kostolias; Cande V Ananth; William M Burke; Ana I Tergas; Eri Prendergast; Scott D Ramsey; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 7.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.