OBJECTIVE: To compare intra-operative, postoperative and pathologic outcomes of three surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection over a three year time period during which all three approaches were used. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who underwent radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection between 1/2007 and 11/2010. Comparison was made between robotic, laparoscopic and open procedures in regard to surgical times, complication rates, and pathologic findings. RESULTS: A total of 95 radical hysterectomy procedures were performed during the study period: 30 open (RAH), 31 laparoscopic (LRH) and 34 robotic (RRH). There were no differences in age, body mass index or other demographic factors between the groups. Operative time was significantly shorter in the RAH compared to LRH and RRH (265 vs 338 vs 328min, p=0.002). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in LRH and RRH compared with RAH (100 vs 100 vs 350mL, p<0.001). Thirteen (24%) of RAH required blood transfusion. Conversion rates were higher in the LRH (16%) compared to RRH (3%) although not significant (p=0.10). Median length of stay was significantly shorter in RRH (1day) vs LRH or RAH (2 vs 4days, p<0.01). Pathologic findings were similar among all groups. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery has made a significant impact on patients undergoing radical hysterectomy including decrease in blood loss and transfusion rates however; operative times were significantly longer compared to open radical hysterectomy. Our findings suggest that the robotic approach may have the added benefit of even shorter length of stay compared to traditional laparoscopy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare intra-operative, postoperative and pathologic outcomes of three surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy and bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection over a three year time period during which all three approaches were used. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who underwent radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection between 1/2007 and 11/2010. Comparison was made between robotic, laparoscopic and open procedures in regard to surgical times, complication rates, and pathologic findings. RESULTS: A total of 95 radical hysterectomy procedures were performed during the study period: 30 open (RAH), 31 laparoscopic (LRH) and 34 robotic (RRH). There were no differences in age, body mass index or other demographic factors between the groups. Operative time was significantly shorter in the RAH compared to LRH and RRH (265 vs 338 vs 328min, p=0.002). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in LRH and RRH compared with RAH (100 vs 100 vs 350mL, p<0.001). Thirteen (24%) of RAH required blood transfusion. Conversion rates were higher in the LRH (16%) compared to RRH (3%) although not significant (p=0.10). Median length of stay was significantly shorter in RRH (1day) vs LRH or RAH (2 vs 4days, p<0.01). Pathologic findings were similar among all groups. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery has made a significant impact on patients undergoing radical hysterectomy including decrease in blood loss and transfusion rates however; operative times were significantly longer compared to open radical hysterectomy. Our findings suggest that the robotic approach may have the added benefit of even shorter length of stay compared to traditional laparoscopy.
Authors: Antonio Gil-Moreno; Oriol Puig; María A Pérez-Benavente; Berta Díaz; Ramona Vergés; Javier De la Torre; José M Martínez-Palones; Jordi Xercavins Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mary L Gemignani; Kathleen Moore; Yukio Sonoda; Ennapadam Venkatraman; Carol Brown; Elizabeth Poynor; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Pedro T Ramirez; Brian M Slomovitz; Pamela T Soliman; Robert L Coleman; Charles Levenback Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2006-02-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Joan L Walker; Marion R Piedmonte; Nick M Spirtos; Scott M Eisenkop; John B Schlaerth; Robert S Mannel; Gregory Spiegel; Richard Barakat; Michael L Pearl; Sudarshan K Sharma Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael Frumovitz; Ricardo dos Reis; Charlotte C Sun; Michael R Milam; Michael W Bevers; Jubilee Brown; Brian M Slomovitz; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Kari L Ring; Pedro T Ramirez; Lesley B Conrad; William Burke; R Wendel Naumann; Mark F Munsell; Michael Frumovitz Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Pamela T Soliman; Ginger Langley; Mark F Munsell; Hemang A Vaniya; Michael Frumovitz; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Pamela T Soliman; David Iglesias; Mark F Munsell; Michael Frumovitz; Shannon N Westin; Alpa M Nick; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Lesley B Conrad; Pedro T Ramirez; William Burke; R Wendel Naumann; Kari L Ring; Mark F Munsell; Michael Frumovitz Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Nate Jones; Nicole D Fleming; Alpa M Nick; Mark F Munsell; Vijayashri Rallapalli; Shannon N Westin; Larissa A Meyer; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pedro T Ramirez; Pamela T Soliman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 5.482