Literature DB >> 27637679

Outcomes of gynecologic oncology patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic procedures in a university setting.

Christen L Walters Haygood1, Janelle M Fauci2, Mary Katherine Huddleston-Colburn2, Warner K Huh2, J Michael Straughn2.   

Abstract

This study evaluated intraoperative complications and postoperative outcomes of gynecologic oncology patients undergoing robotic-assisted (RA) laparoscopic procedures in a university setting. A retrospective chart review evaluated all gynecologic oncology patients at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who underwent attempted RA procedures between August 2006 and October 2011. Patient demographics, medical/surgical history, intraoperative complications, postoperative outcomes, conversion rates, readmission rates, and length of stay were examined. Total complication rates were assessed over time for each surgeon. 681 patients underwent planned RA procedures by seven gynecologic oncologists. The mean body mass index was 33.5 kg/m(2) (range 16.6-71.0 kg/m(2)). 61.4 % were diagnosed with malignancy. The most common procedure was RA hysterectomy with unilateral/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (37.2 %). Robotic staging was performed in 291 patients (45.1 %). Mean estimated blood loss was 75 ml (range 5-700 ml). 36 patients (5.3 %) were converted to laparotomy. The most common reason for conversion was adhesions (30.1 %), followed by uterine size (22.2 %). In 107 cases, a surgical modification was required for specimen removal including mini-laparotomy (24), extension of accessory port (36), morcellation (9), and difficult vaginal delivery (38). 3.7 % had intraoperative complications; 6 patients had a cystotomy and 5 had a vascular injury. Postoperatively, 20 patients had a febrile episode, 9 had wound complications, and 3 had a vaginal cuff dehiscence. 27 (4.2 %) patients were readmitted within 30 days. Complication rates and conversion rates were similar per surgeon. Total complication rates for evaluable surgeons were similar between the first 10 cases and subsequent 50 cases. Although patients undergoing RA procedures in a university setting are high risk, the conversion rate to laparotomy is low and intraoperative and postoperative complications are acceptable. Total complication rates for each surgeon were not impacted by the number of cases performed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Learning curve; Robotic hysterectomy; Robotic hysterectomy complications

Year:  2014        PMID: 27637679     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-014-0452-5

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


  13 in total

1.  Robotic surgical staging for obese patients with endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Karen Y Tang; Stuart K Gardiner; Claire Gould; Blake Osmundsen; Michael Collins; William E Winter
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology fellowship programs in the USA: a survey of fellows and fellowship directors.

Authors:  Gregory P Sfakianos; Peter J Frederick; James E Kendrick; J Michael Straughn; Larry C Kilgore; Warner K Huh
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 2.547

3.  A cohort study evaluating robotic versus laparotomy surgical outcomes of obese women with endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Akila Subramaniam; Kenneth H Kim; Shannon A Bryant; Bin Zhang; Christa Sikes; Kristopher J Kimball; Larry C Kilgore; Warner K Huh; John M Straughn; Ronald D Alvarez
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-06-11       Impact factor: 5.482

4.  Surgical outcome of robotic surgery in morbidly obese patient with endometrial cancer compared to laparotomy.

Authors:  Marcus Q Bernardini; Lilian T Gien; Helen Tipping; Joan Murphy; Barry P Rosen
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.437

5.  Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; William M Burke; Elizabeth T Wilde; Sharyn N Lewin; Abigail S Charles; Jin Hee Kim; Noah Goldman; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-01-30       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  From open radical hysterectomy to robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: aspects of a single institution learning curve.

Authors:  H W R Schreuder; R P Zweemer; W M van Baal; J van de Lande; J C Dijkstra; R H M Verheijen
Journal:  Gynecol Surg       Date:  2010-04-13

7.  What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman?

Authors:  Paola A Gehrig; Leigh A Cantrell; Aaron Shafer; Lisa N Abaid; Alberto Mendivil; John F Boggess
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-08-09       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  The learning curve of robotic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Joshua L Woelk; Elizabeth R Casiano; Amy L Weaver; Bobbie S Gostout; Emanuel C Trabuco; John B Gebhart
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  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

10.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcomes in obese and morbidly obese patients.

Authors:  Taryn Gallo; Shabnam Kashani; Divya A Patel; Karim Elsahwi; Dan-Arin Silasi; Masoud Azodi
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2012 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

View more
  1 in total

1.  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
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.