Literature DB >> 27637681

Perioperative outcomes of three-port robotically assisted hysterectomy: a continuous series of 53 cases.

Patrick Dällenbach1, Patrick Petignat2.   

Abstract

This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of 3-port robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH), using a consecutive series of women who underwent 3-port RALH in a university hospital. From November 2010 until June 2013 we operated on 53 women, whose mean age was 48.4 ± 7.7 years (range 35-68 years), and mean body mass index was 27.1 ± 5.1 kg/m(2) (range 19.5-42.9 kg/m(2)). The indications for hysterectomy were myoma in 31 (58.5 %), adenomyosis in 10 (18.9 %), cervical dysplasia in 4 (7.5 %), neoplasia in 4 (7.5 %), and recurrent polyps or postmenopausal bleeding in the remaining 4 women (7.5 %). We performed total RALH in 50 cases (94.3 %) and subtotal in the others. The median duration of total intervention was 169 min (interquartile range 147.5-206.5 min). The mean weight of the uterus was 209.8 ± 166.6 g (range 36-790 g) and mean estimated blood loss was 72.3 ± 75.9 ml (range 0-300 ml). There were no perioperative complications, in particular no blood transfusions nor conversions to laparotomy. The median hospital stay was 4 days (interquartile range 3-4 days). One patient was reoperated 1 month later for vaginal vault hematoma and another was readmitted 3 weeks post-operatively due to vaginal vault dehiscence after premature intercourse, but did not require reoperation. Three-port RALH is feasible and safe for simple hysterectomy. We believe this experience using minimum ports to be useful to prepare for robotically assisted single-port hysterectomy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hysterectomy; Reduced ports; Robotic surgery; Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy; da Vinci system

Year:  2014        PMID: 27637681     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-014-0454-3

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


  22 in total

Review 1.  Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology.

Authors:  Amanda Nickles Fader; Sarah Cohen; Pedro F Escobar; Camille Gunderson
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.927

2.  A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Beri Ridgeway; Amy J Park; J Eric Jelovsek; Matthew D Barber; Tommaso Falcone; Jon I Einarsson
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study.

Authors:  Dimitri Sarlos; Lavonne Kots; Nebojsa Stevanovic; Gabriel Schaer
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2010-03-05       Impact factor: 2.435

Review 4.  Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: review of literature and available technology.

Authors:  Shitanshu Uppal; Michael Frumovitz; Pedro Escobar; Pedro T Ramirez
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 4.137

5.  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

6.  Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience.

Authors:  R Kevin Reynolds; Arnold P Advincula
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.565

8.  Perioperative outcomes of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign cases with complex pathology.

Authors:  John F Boggess; Paola A Gehrig; Leigh Cantrell; Aaron Shafer; Alberto Mendivil; Emma Rossi; Rabbie Hanna
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  C M Poon; K W Chan; D W H Lee; K C Chan; C W Ko; H Y Cheung; K W Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches.

Authors:  Vanessa L Jacoby; Amy Autry; Gavin Jacobson; Robert Domush; Sanae Nakagawa; Alison Jacoby
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  1 in total

1.  Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for the Large Uterus.

Authors:  Rooma Sinha; Rupa Bana; Madhumathi Sanjay
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.