Literature DB >> 22914470

Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Dimitri Sarlos1, LaVonne Kots, Nebojsa Stevanovic, Stefanie von Felten, Gabriel Schär.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcome and quality of life of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy.
METHODS: For this controlled clinical trial, patients with benign indications for hysterectomy were randomized to receive either a robotic (robotic group) or conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (conventional group). The primary end point was total operating time; secondary end points were perioperative outcome, blood loss, and the change in quality of life.
RESULTS: Ninety-five patients out of 100 randomized patients completed the study. Patient age, body mass index, and uterus weight showed no significant differences between both groups. All results are given as mean (± standard deviation; median). Total operating time for the robotic group was significantly higher with 106 (± 29; 103) compared with 75 (± 21; 74) (conventional group) minutes. Blood loss, complications, analgesics use, and return to activity for both groups were comparable. The change in preoperative to postoperative quality-of-life index (quality of life measured on a linear scale from 0 to 100) was significantly higher in the robotic group, with 13 (± 10; 13) compared with 5 (± 14; 5) (conventional group).
CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and conventional laparoscopy compare well in most surgical aspects, but the robotic procedure is associated with longer operating times. Postoperative quality-of-life index was better; however, long-term, there was no difference. However, subjective postoperative parameters such as analgesic use and return to activity showed no significant difference between both groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22914470     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265b61a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  41 in total

Review 1.  Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

Review 2.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Authors:  Benjamin B Albright; Tilman Witte; Alena N Tofte; Jeremy Chou; Jonathan D Black; Vrunda B Desai; Elisabeth A Erekson
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 4.137

Review 3.  Review of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Fred Brody; Nathan G Richards
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Cost analysis of minimally invasive hysterectomy vs open approach performed by a single surgeon in an Italian center.

Authors:  Antonio Pellegrino; Gianluca Raffaello Damiani; Giorgio Fachechi; Silvia Corso; Cecilia Pirovano; Claudia Trio; Mario Villa; Daniela Turoli; Aly Youssef
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-07-26

9.  Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence.

Authors:  Arif Ahmad; Zoha F Ahmad; Jared D Carleton; Ashish Agarwala
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications.

Authors:  Carolyn W Swenson; Neil S Kamdar; John A Harris; Shitanshu Uppal; Darrell A Campbell; Daniel M Morgan
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 8.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.