Robotically Assisted Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Prospective Study

Overview

Journal Minim Invasive Surg

Publisher Wiley

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2013 Aug 13

PMID 23936645

Citations 5

Authors

M Carbonnel

H Abbou

H T Nguyen

S Roy

G Hamdi

A Jnifen

J M Ayoubi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives. A prospective study was carried out to compare vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and robotically assisted hysterectomy (RH) for benign gynecological disease. Materials and Methods. All patients who underwent hysterectomy from March 2010 to March 2012 for a benign disease were included. Patients' demographics per and post surgery results were collected from medical files. A questionnaire was also conducted 2 months after surgery. Results. Sixty patients were included in the RH group and thirty four in the VH one. Operative time was significantly longer in the RH group (132.1 ± 5.7 versus 75.3 ± 6.7 min; P < 0.0001). Blood loss and length of hospital stay were significantly reduced: 47 ± 7 versus 125 ± 20 ml; P < 0.01, and 2.4 ± 0.1 versus 3.3 ± 0.2 days; P < 0.0001, respectively. Less pain was reported at D1 and D2 by RH patients, and levels of analgesia were lower compared to those observed in the VH group. No differences were found regarding the rate of conversion to laparotomy, intra- or postoperative complications. Conclusion. Robotically assisted hysterectomy appears to reduce blood loss, postoperative pain, and length of hospital stay, but it is associated with longer operative time and higher cost. Specific indications for RH remain to be defined.

Citing Articles

Robotic-assisted benign hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic, vaginal, and open surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lenfant L, Canlorbe G, Belghiti J, Kreaden U, Hebert A, Nikpayam M J Robot Surg. 2023; 17(6):2647-2662.

PMID: 37856058 PMC: 10678826. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01724-6.

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

Carbonnel M, Moawad G, Tarazi M, Revaux A, Kennel T, Favre-Inhofer A JSLS. 2021; 25(1).

PMID: 33879990 PMC: 8035818. DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2020.00091.

Overcoming barriers to vaginal hysterectomy: An analysis of perioperative outcomes.

Sirota I, Tomita S, Dabney L, Weinberg A, Chuang L J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2018; 20(1):8-14.

PMID: 30209028 PMC: 6501867. DOI: 10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2018.2018.0021.

Validation of an educational simulation model for vaginal hysterectomy training: a pilot study.

Miyazaki D, Matthews C, Kia M, El Haraki A, Miyazaki N, Chen C Int Urogynecol J. 2018; 30(8):1329-1336.

PMID: 30191250 PMC: 6401358. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3761-9.

Pedagogic Approach in the Surgical Learning: The First Period of "Assistant Surgeon" May Improve the Learning Curve for Laparoscopic Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy.

Favre A, Huberlant S, Carbonnel M, Goetgheluck J, Revaux A, Ayoubi J Front Surg. 2016; 3:58.

PMID: 27853733 PMC: 5089967. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00058.

References

Pasic R, Rizzo J, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C . Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010; 17(6):730-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.06.009. View

Nieboer T, Johnson N, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R . Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; (3):CD003677. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub4. View

Kho R, Akl M, Cornella J, Magtibay P, Wechter M, Magrina J . Incidence and characteristics of patients with vaginal cuff dehiscence after robotic procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(2 Pt 1):231-235. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181af36e3. View

Payne T, Dauterive F . A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008; 15(3):286-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.01.008. View

Boggess J, Gehrig P, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Mendivil A, Rossi E . Perioperative outcomes of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign cases with complex pathology. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(3):585-593. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b47030. View

David-Montefiore E, Rouzier R, Chapron C, Darai E . Surgical routes and complications of hysterectomy for benign disorders: a prospective observational study in French university hospitals. Hum Reprod. 2006; 22(1):260-5. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del336. View

Drahonovsky J, Haakova L, Otcenasek M, Krofta L, Kucera E, Feyereisl J . A prospective randomized comparison of vaginal hysterectomy, laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy in women with benign uterine disease. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009; 148(2):172-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.10.019. View

Gendy R, Walsh C, Walsh S, Karantanis E . Vaginal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204(5):388.e1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.12.059. View

Matthews C, Reid N, Ramakrishnan V, Hull K, Cohen S . Evaluation of the introduction of robotic technology on route of hysterectomy and complications in the first year of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203(5):499.e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.07.022. View

10.

Ghezzi F, Uccella S, Cromi A, Siesto G, Serati M, Bogani G . Postoperative pain after laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203(2):118.e1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.026. View

11.

Weinberg L, Rao S, Escobar P . Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2011; 2011:852061. PMC: 3236390. DOI: 10.1155/2011/852061. View

12.

Giep B, Giep H, Hubert H . Comparison of minimally invasive surgical approaches for hysterectomy at a community hospital: robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. J Robot Surg. 2010; 4(3):167-75. PMC: 2931763. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-010-0206-y. View

13.

Gaia G, Holloway R, Santoro L, Ahmad S, Di Silverio E, Spinillo A . Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116(6):1422-1431. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f74153. View

14.

Landeen L, Bell M, Hubert H, Bennis L, Knutsen-Larson S, Seshadri-Kreaden U . Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. S D Med. 2011; 64(6):197-9, 201, 203 passim. View

15.

Payne T, Pitter M . Robotic-assisted surgery for the community gynecologist: can it be adopted?. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 54(3):391-411. DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e31822b4998. View