Literature DB >> 28099699

Randomized controlled trial comparing operative times between standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Timothy A Deimling1, Jennifer L Eldridge1, Kristin A Riley1, Allen R Kunselman2, Gerald J Harkins1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the operative time between robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomies and standard laparoscopic hysterectomies.
METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolled women aged 18-80 years attending Penn State Hershey Medical Center between April 23 and October 20, 2014 to undergo hysterectomy. Participants were randomized using a random number generator to undergo either robot-assisted or standard laparoscopic hysterectomy. The primary outcome was the total operative time (surgeon incision to surgeon stop, including robot docking time, if applicable). Intention-to-treat analyses were performed and the operative time was compared between the two treatments for non-inferiority, defined as a difference in operative time of no longer than 15 minutes.
RESULTS: There were 72 patients randomized to each treatment arm. The mean operative time was 73.9 minutes (median 67.0 minutes; interquartile range 59.0-83.0 minutes) in the robot-assisted hysterectomy group and 74.9 minutes (median 65.5 minutes; interquartile range 57.0-90.5 minutes) in the standard laparoscopic hysterectomy group. The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in operative time was 6.6 minutes, below the 15-minute measure of non-inferiority.
CONCLUSION: When performed by a surgeon experienced in both techniques, the operative time for robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy was non-inferior to that achieved with standard laparoscopic hysterectomy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02118974.
© 2016 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hysterectomy; Laparoscopic; Minimally invasive; Operative time; Robotic-assisted

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28099699      PMCID: PMC5245181          DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet        ISSN: 0020-7292            Impact factor:   3.561


  17 in total

1.  A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression.

Authors:  Georg Heinze; Michael Schemper
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-08-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Surgical techniques: robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system.

Authors:  A P Advincula
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.547

4.  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

5.  Current Role of Robotic Hysterectomy.

Authors:  Brent Dubeshter; Cynthia Angel; Eugene Toy; Sajeena Thomas; J Christopher Glantz
Journal:  J Gynecol Surg       Date:  2013-08

6.  Binomial regression in GLIM: estimating risk ratios and risk differences.

Authors:  S Wacholder
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 4.897

7.  Committee opinion no. 628: robotic surgery in gynecology.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Resad P Pasic; John A Rizzo; Hai Fang; Susan Ross; Matt Moore; Candace Gunnarsson
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 4.137

Review 9.  Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.

Authors:  Hongqian Liu; Theresa A Lawrie; DongHao Lu; Huan Song; Lei Wang; Gang Shi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-12-10

10.  Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience.

Authors:  Camran Nezhat; Ofer Lavie; Madeleine Lemyre; Ofer Gemer; Lisa Bhagan; Ceana Nezhat
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2009 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

View more
  6 in total

1.  Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.

Authors:  Theresa A Lawrie; Hongqian Liu; DongHao Lu; Therese Dowswell; Huan Song; Lei Wang; Gang Shi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-04-15

Review 2.  The current status of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer in Japan.

Authors:  Tomoko Gota; Kensuke Tomio; Taichi Kurose; Risa Saito; Ryoken Nara; Sohmi Kin; Minami Hoshiba; Yuri Ogata; Misao Nakanishi; Maya Takamoto; Miyuki Sadatsuki; Hajime Oishi
Journal:  Glob Health Med       Date:  2022-02-28

3.  Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Cherynne Yuin Mun Johansson; Felix Kwok Hee Chan
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X       Date:  2020-09-06

Review 4.  Update of Robotic Surgery in Benign Gynecological Pathology: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Vito Andrea Capozzi; Elisa Scarpelli; Giulia Armano; Luciano Monfardini; Angela Celardo; Gaetano Maria Munno; Nicola Fortunato; Primo Vagnetti; Maria Teresa Schettino; Giulia Grassini; Domenico Labriola; Carla Loreto; Marco Torella; Stefano Cianci
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-04-17       Impact factor: 2.948

Review 5.  Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology-The Future Is Here.

Authors:  Roy Lauterbach; Emad Matanes; Lior Lowenstein
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2017-04-28

6.  Robotic Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: What Have We Learned from a Decade?

Authors:  Marie Carbonnel; Gaby N Moawad; Mia Maria Tarazi; Aurelie Revaux; Titouan Kennel; Angéline Favre-Inhofer; Jean Marc Ayoubi
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2021 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.