Literature DB >> 34981444

Minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications-surgical volume matters: a retrospective cohort study comparing complications of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies.

Michael G Baracy1, Marco Martinez2, Karen Hagglund3, Fareeza Afzal2, Sanjana Kulkarni2, Logan Corey4, Muhammad Faisal Aslam5,6.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of perioperative complications in robotic-assisted hysterectomies performed by high-volume robotic surgeons compared to conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies performed by all gynecologic surgeons. This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single-center community based hospital and medical center. A total of 332 patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications were included in this study. Half of these patients (n = 166) underwent conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy and the other half underwent a robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. The main outcome measures included composite complication rate, estimated blood loss (EBL), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Median (IQR) EBL was significantly lower for robotic hysterectomy [22.5 (30) mL] compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy [100 (150) mL, p < 0.0001]. LOS was significantly shorter for robotic hysterectomy (1.0 ± 0.2 day) compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy (1.2 ± 0.7 days, p = 0.04). Despite averaging 3.0 (IQR 1.0) concomitant procedures compared to 0 (IQR 1.0) for the conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies, the incidence of any type of complication was lower in the robotic hysterectomy group (2 vs. 6%, p = 0.05). Finally, in a logistic regression model controlling for multiple confounders, robotic-assisted hysterectomy was less likely to result in a perioperative complication compared to traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy [odds ratio (95% CI) = 0.2 (0.1, 0.90), p = 0.04]. In conclusion, robotic-assisted hysterectomy may reduce complications compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy when performed by high volume surgeons, especially in the setting of other concomitant gynecologic surgeries.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  High volume surgeon; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive gynecology; Robotic-assisted hysterectomy; Surgical Complications

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34981444     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01340-2

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


  18 in total

Review 1.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Authors:  Benjamin B Albright; Tilman Witte; Alena N Tofte; Jeremy Chou; Jonathan D Black; Vrunda B Desai; Elisabeth A Erekson
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 4.137

2.  The effect of surgeon volume on outcomes and resource use for vaginal hysterectomy.

Authors:  Lisa J Rogo-Gupta; Sharyn N Lewin; Jin Hee Kim; William M Burke; Xuming Sun; Thomas J Herzog; Jason D Wright
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Effect of surgical volume on outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications.

Authors:  Michelle R Wallenstein; Cande V Ananth; Jin Hee Kim; William M Burke; Dawn L Hershman; Sharyn N Lewin; Alfred I Neugut; Yu-Shiang Lu; Thomas J Herzog; Jason D Wright
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  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

5.  Reduced Complications Following Implementation of Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Danish Population-based Cohort Study of Minimally Invasive Benign Gynecologic Surgery between 2004 and 2018.

Authors:  Annette Settnes; Märta Fink Topsoee; Charlotte Moeller; Margit Dueholm; Tine Iskov Kopp; Christina Norrbom; Steen Christian Rasmussen; Pia Arnum Froeslev; Annemette Joergensen; Eva Dreisler; Helga Gimbel
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 4.137

6.  Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Dimitri Sarlos; LaVonne Kots; Nebojsa Stevanovic; Stefanie von Felten; Gabriel Schär
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 7.  Surgical outcomes for low-volume vs high-volume surgeons in gynecology surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alex Mowat; Christopher Maher; Emma Ballard
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Outcomes of Hysterectomy Performed by Very Low-Volume Surgeons.

Authors:  Maria P Ruiz; Ling Chen; June Y Hou; Ana I Tergas; Caryn M St Clair; Cande V Ananth; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  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

10.  The impact of surgeon volume on perioperative outcomes in hysterectomy.

Authors:  Florentien E M Vree; Sarah L Cohen; Niraj Chavan; Jon I Einarsson
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.