Literature DB >> 24084534

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease.

Eric B Rosero1, Kimberly A Kho, Girish P Joshi, Martin Giesecke, Joseph I Schaffer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Use of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign gynecologic conditions is increasing. Using the most recent, available nationwide data, we examined clinical outcomes, safety, and cost of robotic compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy.
METHODS: Women undergoing robotic or laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease were identified from the United States 2009 and 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Propensity scores derived from a logistic regression model were used to assemble matched cohorts of patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy. Differences in in-hospital complications, hospital length of stay, and hospital charges were assessed between the matched groups.
RESULTS: Of the 804,551 hysterectomies for benign conditions performed in 2009 and 2010, 20.6% were laparoscopic and 5.1% robotically assisted. Among minimally invasive hysterectomies, the use of robotic hysterectomy increased from 9.5% to 13.6% (P=.002). In a propensity-matched analysis, the overall complication rates were similar between robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy (8.80% compared with 8.85%, relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-1.09, P=.910). There was a lower incidence of blood transfusions in robotic cases (2.1% compared with 3.1%; P<.001), but patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy were more likely to experience postoperative pneumonia (relative risk 2.2, 95% CI 1.24-3.78, P=.005). The median cost of hospital care was $9,788 (interquartile range $7,105-12,780) for robotic hysterectomy and $7,299 (interquartile range $5,650-9,583) for laparoscopic hysterectomy (P<.001). Hospital costs were on average $2,489 (95% CI $2,313-2,664) higher for patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy.
CONCLUSION: The use of robotic hysterectomy has increased. Perioperative outcomes are similar between laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy, but robotic cases cost substantially more. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: : II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24084534      PMCID: PMC4361072          DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a4ee4d

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


  29 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

2.  Two-dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for vaginal cuff closure by surgeons-in-training: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mobolaji O Ajao; Christian R Larsen; Elmira Manoucheri; Emily R Goggins; Maja T Rask; Mary K B Cox; Avery Mushinski; Xiangmei Gu; Sarah L Cohen; Martin Rudnicki; Jon I Einarsson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The new robotic TELELAP ALF-X in gynecological surgery: single-center experience.

Authors:  Francesco Fanfani; Giorgia Monterossi; Anna Fagotti; Cristiano Rossitto; Salvatore Gueli Alletti; Barbara Costantini; Valerio Gallotta; Luigi Selvaggi; Stefano Restaino; Giovanni Scambia
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Robotic surgery: is it right for India?

Authors:  Gaurav S Desai
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-06-04

5.  Effect of Surgical Skin Antisepsis on Surgical Site Infections in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Uri P Dior; Shamitha Kathurusinghe; Claudia Cheng; Charlotte Reddington; Andrew J Daley; Catarina Ang; Martin Healey
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 14.766

6.  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

7.  Health resource utilization and costs during the first 90 days following robot-assisted hysterectomy.

Authors:  Vani Dandolu; Prathamesh Pathak
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  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

Review 9.  30 Years of Robotic Surgery.

Authors:  Tiago Leal Ghezzi; Oly Campos Corleta
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.352

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.