Jasmine Tan-Kim1, Shawn A Menefee, Karl M Luber, Charles W Nager, Emily S Lukacz. 1. From the *Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Reproductive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; and †Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: : To compare operative times, hospital costs, and surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSC) and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). METHODS: : A retrospective cohort study of 104 subjects who underwent RALSC (n = 43) or LSC (n = 61) for vaginal vault prolapse was performed. The primary outcomes were operative time and hospital costs. The secondary outcomes included blood loss, complications, and objective cure rates. χ and t tests were used. RESULTS: : The mean operative time was longer in RALSC than in LSC (281 ± 58 vs 206 ± 42 minutes; P < 0.001) with setup time accounting for only 9 minutes of this difference. Direct costs (expressed in cost units) for hospital stay were similar (437 ± 88 vs 450 ± 119 units; P = 0.738) while surgical costs remained higher for RALSC (2724 ± 413 vs 2295 ± 342 units; P < 0.01). Blood loss and complications were similar, and objective cure was not significantly different for RALSC vs LSC (90% vs 80%, P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: : Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy achieves similar perioperative outcomes compared to LSC with increased surgical time resulting in increased costs.
OBJECTIVES: : To compare operative times, hospital costs, and surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSC) and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). METHODS: : A retrospective cohort study of 104 subjects who underwent RALSC (n = 43) or LSC (n = 61) for vaginal vault prolapse was performed. The primary outcomes were operative time and hospital costs. The secondary outcomes included blood loss, complications, and objective cure rates. χ and t tests were used. RESULTS: : The mean operative time was longer in RALSC than in LSC (281 ± 58 vs 206 ± 42 minutes; P < 0.001) with setup time accounting for only 9 minutes of this difference. Direct costs (expressed in cost units) for hospital stay were similar (437 ± 88 vs 450 ± 119 units; P = 0.738) while surgical costs remained higher for RALSC (2724 ± 413 vs 2295 ± 342 units; P < 0.01). Blood loss and complications were similar, and objective cure was not significantly different for RALSC vs LSC (90% vs 80%, P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: : Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy achieves similar perioperative outcomes compared to LSC with increased surgical time resulting in increased costs.
Authors: Maribel De Gouveia De Sa; Leica Sarah Claydon; Barry Whitlow; Maria Angelica Dolcet Artahona Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Catherine O Hudson; Gina M Northington; Robert H Lyles; Deborah R Karp Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2014 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Karl Jallad; Matthew D Barber; Beri Ridgeway; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Cecile A Unger Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 2.894