Literature DB >> 23395927

A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Marie Fidela R Paraiso1, Beri Ridgeway, Amy J Park, J Eric Jelovsek, Matthew D Barber, Tommaso Falcone, Jon I Einarsson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare operative time and intra- and postoperative complications between total laparoscopic hysterectomy and robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. STUDY
DESIGN: This study was a blinded, prospective randomized controlled trial conducted at 2 institutions. Subjects consisted of women who planned laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Preoperative randomization to total laparoscopic hysterectomy or robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy was stratified by surgeon and uterine size (> or ≤12 weeks). Validated questionnaires, activity assessment scales, and visual analogue scales were administered at baseline and during follow-up evaluation.
RESULTS: Sixty-two women gave consent and were enrolled and randomly assigned; 53 women underwent surgery (laparoscopic, 27 women; robot-assisted, 26 women). There were no demographic differences between groups. Compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy, total case time (skin incision to skin closure) was significantly longer in the robot-assisted group (mean difference, +77 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 33-121; P < .001] as was total operating room time (entry into operating room to exit; mean difference, +72 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 14-130; P = .016). Mean docking time was 6 ± 4 minutes. There were no significant differences between groups in estimated blood loss, pre- and postoperative hematocrit change, and length of stay. There were very few complications, with no difference in individual complication types or total complications between groups. Postoperative pain and return to daily activities were no different between groups.
CONCLUSION: Although laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomies are safe approaches to hysterectomy, robotic-assisted hysterectomy requires a significantly longer operative time.
Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23395927     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.008

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


  38 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

3.  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

4.  High tech or high risk? An analysis of media reports about robotic surgery.

Authors:  Zita Ficko; Kevin Koo; Elias S Hyams
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-10-24

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

6.  Randomized controlled trial comparing operative times between standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Timothy A Deimling; Jennifer L Eldridge; Kristin A Riley; Allen R Kunselman; Gerald J Harkins
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 3.561

7.  Health care cost consequences of using robot technology for hysterectomy: a register-based study of consecutive patients during 2006-2013.

Authors:  Karin Rosenkilde Laursen; Vibe Bolvig Hyldgård; Pernille Tine Jensen; Rikke Søgaard
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-07-10

8.  Learning curve and robot set-up/operative times in singly docked totally robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Authors:  Subhashini Ayloo; Eduardo Fernandes; Nabajit Choudhury
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Position-related injury is uncommon in robotic gynecologic surgery.

Authors:  Michael A Ulm; Nicole D Fleming; Vijayashri Rallapali; Mark F Munsell; Pedro T Ramirez; Shannon N Westin; Alpa M Nick; Kathleen M Schmeler; Pamela T Soliman
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Indications and Route of Hysterectomy for Benign Diseases. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/070, April 2015)

Authors:  K J Neis; W Zubke; T Römer; K Schwerdtfeger; T Schollmeyer; S Rimbach; B Holthaus; E Solomayer; B Bojahr; F Neis; C Reisenauer; B Gabriel; H Dieterich; I B Runnenbaum; W Kleine; A Strauss; M Menton; I Mylonas; M David; L-C Horn; D Schmidt; P Gaß; A T Teichmann; P Brandner; W Stummvoll; A Kuhn; M Müller; M Fehr; K Tamussino
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.915

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.