Literature DB >> 27628278

Incidence and characteristics of vaginal cuff dehiscence in robotic-assisted and traditional total laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Erin Dauterive1, George Morris2.   

Abstract

This study compares the incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence following robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH) with total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and examines factors that may be related to risk. A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients undergoing RALH (n = 268), TLH (n = 463), and/or repair of vaginal cuff dehiscence at our clinic from July 2006 to January 2010. The cumulative incidence was calculated only for dehiscence that occurred after hysterectomies without evidence of malignancy. The incidence of cuff dehiscence in RALH (2.61%) versus TLH (1.94%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.60). However, among RALH patients, the overall incidence of cuff dehiscence after each surgeon's first 25 cases was low at 0.85%. Mean time to presentation was similar in both groups, 8.2 weeks in RALH and 8.7 weeks in TLH, with sexual intercourse the most common inciting event. Where documented, records of dehisced patients showed that all colpotomy incisions were created using monopolar cautery and closed using 0 Vicryl sutures. In TLH, 87.5% of the colpotomy incisions were closed using the Endo Stitch device in a variety of fashions. While our findings show that the overall incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence in RALH and TLH is comparable, the data also suggest that increased experience with robotic-assisted surgery may decrease dehiscence rates over time. Randomized controlled trials comparing different methods of colpotomy creation, particularly electrocautery, and cuff closure are needed to help guide us in the best surgical practices to reduce vaginal cuff dehiscence and related complications.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hysterectomy; Laparoscopy; Robotics; Vaginal cuff dehiscence

Year:  2011        PMID: 27628278     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-011-0285-4

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


  11 in total

1.  Comparison of wound-healing characteristics with feedback circuit electrosurgical generators in a porcine model.

Authors:  Harrison S Pollinger; Gamal Mostafa; Kristi L Harold; Catherine E Austin; Kent W Kercher; Brent D Matthews
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 0.688

2.  A prospective comparison of vaginal stump suturing techniques during total laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  In Cheul Jeung; Jong Min Baek; Eun Kyung Park; Hae Nam Lee; Chan Joo Kim; Tae Chul Park; Yong Seok Lee
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2009-11-27       Impact factor: 2.344

3.  Comparative healing of surgical incisions created by the PEAK PlasmaBlade, conventional electrosurgery, and a scalpel.

Authors:  Shang A Loh; Grace A Carlson; Edward I Chang; Eric Huang; Daniel Palanker; Geoffrey C Gurtner
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Effects of thermal knives on wound healing.

Authors:  D E Sowa; B J Masterson; N Nealon; J A von Fraunhofer
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Vaginal cuff closure: a comparison between the vaginal route and laparoscopic suture in patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Jong Ha Hwang; Jae Kwan Lee; Nak Woo Lee; Kyu Wan Lee
Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Invest       Date:  2010-12-14       Impact factor: 2.031

6.  Incidence and patient characteristics of vaginal cuff dehiscence after different modes of hysterectomies.

Authors:  Hye-Chun Hur; Richard S Guido; Suketu M Mansuria; Michele R Hacker; Joseph S Sanfilippo; Ted T Lee
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.137

7.  Incidence and characteristics of patients with vaginal cuff dehiscence after robotic procedures.

Authors:  Rosanne M Kho; Mohamed N Akl; Jeffrey L Cornella; Paul M Magtibay; Mary Ellen Wechter; Javier F Magrina
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Vaginal cuff dehiscence after robotic total laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Barbara L Robinson; John B Liao; Sarah F Adams; Thomas C Randall
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice.

Authors:  Thomas N Payne; Francis R Dauterive
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2008-03-06       Impact factor: 4.137

10.  What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery?

Authors:  John P Lenihan; Carol Kovanda; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.137

View more
  5 in total

1.  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

2.  Robotic repair of vaginal evisceration after hysterectomy and the role of intraoperative near-infrared fluorescence imaging.

Authors:  Melis Canturk; Volkan Ozben; Mehmet Faruk Kose; Bilgi Baca
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-02-27

3.  Vaginal cuff dehiscence in robotic-assisted total hysterectomy.

Authors:  Shabnam Kashani; Taryn Gallo; Anita Sargent; Karim Elsahwi; Dan-Arin Silasi; Masoud Azodi
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2012 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

4.  Two-Layer Compared With One-Layer Vaginal Cuff Closure at the Time of Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy to Reduce Complications.

Authors:  Ann Peters; Riyas Ali; Shana Miles; Christine E Foley; Alexandra Buffie; Kristine Ruppert; Suketu M Mansuria
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 7.623

5.  Implementation of robotic gynecological surgery in a German University Hospital: patient safety after 110 procedures.

Authors:  Dimitrios Balafoutas; Achim Wöckel; Christine Wulff; Ralf Joukhadar
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2020-08-25       Impact factor: 2.344

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.