Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy for Benign Indications-surgical Volume Matters: a Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Complications of Robotic-assisted and Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomies
Overview
General Surgery
Authors
Affiliations
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.
Higuchi N, Kanno K, Ochi Y, Sawada M, Sakate S, Yanai S Cureus. 2024; 16(3):e56602.
PMID: 38646385 PMC: 11031623. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.56602.
Robotic-assisted vs. open ureteral reimplantation: a multicentre comparison.
Ziewers S, Dotzauer R, Thomas A, Brandt M, Haferkamp A, Frees S World J Urol. 2024; 42(1):194.
PMID: 38530438 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04875-9.
Baracy Jr M, Kerl A, Hagglund K, Fennell B, Corey L, Aslam M J Robot Surg. 2023; 17(5):2211-2220.
PMID: 37280406 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01631-w.