Literature DB >> 24937481

Conversion from robotic surgery to laparotomy: a case-control study evaluating risk factors for conversion.

Nate Jones1, Nicole D Fleming2, Alpa M Nick2, Mark F Munsell3, Vijayashri Rallapalli2, Shannon N Westin2, Larissa A Meyer2, Kathleen M Schmeler2, Pedro T Ramirez2, Pamela T Soliman4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine risk factors associated with conversion to laparotomy for women undergoing robotic gynecologic surgery.
METHODS: The medical records of 459 consecutive robotic surgery cases performed between December 2006 and October 2011 by 8 different surgeons at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Cases converted to laparotomy were compared to those completed robotically. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic and clinical characteristics.
RESULTS: Forty of 459 (8.7%, 95% CI 6.3%-11.7%) patients had conversion to open surgery. Reason for conversion included poor visualization due to adhesions (13), inability to tolerate Trendelenburg (7), enlarged uterus (7), extensive peritoneal disease (5), bowel injury (2), ureteral injury (1), vascular injury (1), bladder injury (1), technical difficulty with the robot (2), and inability to access abdominal cavity (1). 5% of cases were converted prior to docking the robot. On univariate analysis, preoperative diagnosis (p=0.012), non-White race (p=0.004), history of asthma (p=0.027), ASA score (p=0.032), bowel injury (p=0.012), greater BMI (p<0.001), need for blood transfusion (p<0.001), and expected blood loss (p<0.001) were associated with conversion. On multivariate analysis, non-White race (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.39-5.96, p=0.004), bowel injury (OR 35.40, 95% CI 3.00-417.28, p=0.005), and increasing BMI (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09, p<0.001) were significantly associated with increased risk for conversion. Prior surgery was not associated with conversion to open surgery (p=0.347).
CONCLUSION: Conversion to laparotomy was required for 8.7% of patients undergoing robotic surgery for a gynecologic indication. Increasing BMI and non-white race were identified as the two preoperative risk factors associated with conversion.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Conversion; Minimally invasive surgery; Robotic surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24937481      PMCID: PMC4125462          DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.06.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  12 in total

Review 1.  The role of robotic surgery in gynecology.

Authors:  Arnold P Advincula; Arleen Song
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.927

2.  Impact of age on perioperative complications and length of stay in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

Authors:  C A Polanczyk; E Marcantonio; L Goldman; L E Rohde; J Orav; C M Mangione; T H Lee
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2001-04-17       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Radical hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical approaches after adoption of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology.

Authors:  Pamela T Soliman; Michael Frumovitz; Charlotte C Sun; Ricardo Dos Reis; Kathleen M Schmeler; Alpa M Nick; Shannon N Westin; Jubilee Brown; Charles F Levenback; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-08-27       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Robotic surgical staging for endometrial and cervical cancers in medically ill patients.

Authors:  Gabriele Siesto; Sara Ornaghi; Nicoletta Iedà; Domenico Vitobello
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution.

Authors:  Emily M Ko; Michael G Muto; Ross S Berkowitz; Colleen M Feltmate
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  Implementation and applications of robotic surgery within gynecologic oncology and gynecology; analysis of the first thousand cases.

Authors:  C Lönnerfors; J Persson
Journal:  Ceska Gynekol       Date:  2013-01

7.  Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study.

Authors:  Angelo Maggioni; Lucas Minig; Vanna Zanagnolo; Michele Peiretti; Fabio Sanguineti; Luca Bocciolone; Nicoletta Colombo; Fabio Landoni; Giovanni Roviglione; Jorge Ivan Vélez
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy.

Authors:  John F Boggess; Paola A Gehrig; Leigh Cantrell; Aaron Shafer; Mildred Ridgway; Elizabeth N Skinner; Wesley C Fowler
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Leigh G Seamon; David E Cohn; Debra L Richardson; Sue Valmadre; Matthew J Carlson; Gary S Phillips; Jeffrey M Fowler
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2.

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

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  The roles and limitations of robotic surgery for obese endometrial cancer patients: a common challenge in gynecologic oncology.

Authors:  Teuta Shemshedini; Tana S Pradhan; Tarah L Pua; Sean S Tedjarati
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-05-01

2.  Comparison of Risk Factors for Unplanned Conversion from Laparoscopic and Robotic to Open Colorectal Surgery Using the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) Database.

Authors:  Anuradha R Bhama; Abdullah M Wafa; Jane Ferraro; Stacey D Collins; Andrew J Mullard; James F Vandewarker; Greta Krapohl; John C Byrn; Robert K Cleary
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Uptake and outcomes of robotic gynaecological surgery in England (2006-2018): an account of Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES).

Authors:  D El-Hamamsy; R S Geary; I Gurol-Urganci; J van der Meulen; D Tincello
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-02-15

Review 4.  Robotic surgery in gynecology.

Authors:  Rooma Sinha; Madhumati Sanjay; B Rupa; Samita Kumari
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.407

Review 5.  The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Marco Milone; Michele Manigrasso; Pietro Anoldo; Anna D'Amore; Ugo Elmore; Mariano Cesare Giglio; Gianluca Rompianesi; Sara Vertaldi; Roberto Ivan Troisi; Nader K Francis; Giovanni Domenico De Palma
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-02-18

6.  Surgical trends, outcomes and disparities in minimal invasive surgery for patients with endometrial cancer in England: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Esther L Moss; George Morgan; Antony P Martin; Panos Sarhanis; Thomas Ind
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Major vascular injury during gynecologic cancer surgery.

Authors:  Andrea L Buras; Jing Yi Chern; Hye Sook Chon; Mian M Shahzad; Robert M Wenham; Mitchel S Hoffman
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol Rep       Date:  2021-06-25
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.