Literature DB >> 27627947

Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison of outcomes and cost.

Darron Halliday1, Susie Lau1, Zvi Vaknin1, Claire Deland2, Mark Levental3, Elizabeth McNamara4, Raphael Gotlieb1, Rebecca Kaufer1, Jeffrey How1, Eva Cohen5, Walter H Gotlieb6.   

Abstract

Operative and peri-operative outcomes, complications, and cost for radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer with negative sentinel nodes have been compared for robotics and laparotomy. Forty patients underwent radical hysterectomy with/out bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, for early-stage cervical cancer. All cases were performed by one of two surgeons, at a single institution (16 robotic, 24 laparotomy). The data for the robotic group were collected prospectively and compared with data for a historic cohort who underwent laparotomy. The data included demographics and peri-operative variables including operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node count, hospital stay, and complications. Additionally, real direct hospital cost was compared for both modalities. Patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy experienced longer operative time than the laparotomy cohort (351 min vs. 283 min P = 0.0001). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower for the robotic cohort than for the laparotomy cohort (106 ml vs. 546 ml P < 0.0001). The minor complication rate was lower in the robotic cohort than for laparotomy (19% vs. 63% P = 0.003). Average hospital stay for the robotic patients was significantly shorter than for those undergoing laparotomy (1.9 days versus 7.2 days, P < 0.0001). Lymph node retrieval did not differ between the two groups (robotic 15 nodes, laparotomy 13 nodes). The total average peri-operative costs for radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy completed via laparotomy was CAN $11,764 ± 6,790, and for robotic assistance 8,183 ± 1,089 (P = 0.002). When amortization of the robot was included, there remained a trend in favor of the robotic approach, but it did not reach statistical significance. Whereas robotics takes longer to perform than traditional laparotomy, it provides the patient with a shorter hospital stay, less need for pain medications, and reduced peri-operative morbidity. In addition real average hospital costs tend to be lower.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; Complications, economical considerations; Cost; Laparotomy; Radical hysterectomy; Robotics

Year:  2010        PMID: 27627947     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-010-0205-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  14 in total

1.  A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices.

Authors:  Venita Chandra; Deepika Nehra; Richard Parent; Russell Woo; Rosette Reyes; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Sanjeev Dutta
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2009-12-31       Impact factor: 3.982

2.  Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: laparoscopy versus robotics.

Authors:  Farr Nezhat
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-08-31       Impact factor: 5.482

3.  Cervical and vulva cancer: changes in FIGO definitions of staging.

Authors:  J H Shepherd
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1996-05

4.  ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and treatment of cervical carcinomas, number 35, May 2002.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques.

Authors:  Maria C Bell; Jenny Torgerson; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden; Allison Wierda Suttle; Sharon Hunt
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  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

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.  Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

Authors:  Daniel Dindo; Nicolas Demartines; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 10.  Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: evolution of a new surgical paradigm.

Authors:  John F Boggess
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2007-02-28
View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Robot-assisted surgery:--impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  O E O'Sullivan; B A O'Reilly
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Robotic radical hysterectomy versus open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a single-centre experience from India.

Authors:  Rupinder Sekhon; Amita Naithani; Priyanka Makkar; Pratima R; Parul Sharma; Sudhir Rawal; Yuvraj Goyal; Swarupa Mitra; Anila Sharma; Anurag Mehta
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-10-28

Review 3.  Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Immaculate F Nevis; Bahareh Vali; Caroline Higgins; Irfan Dhalla; David Urbach; Marcus Q Bernardini
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-07-16

Review 4.  A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies.

Authors:  Malene Korsholm; Jan Sørensen; Ole Mogensen; Chunsen Wu; Kamilla Karlsen; Pernille T Jensen
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2018-09-07
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.