» Articles » PMID: 34981444

Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy for Benign Indications-surgical Volume Matters: a Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Complications of Robotic-assisted and Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomies

Overview
Journal J Robot Surg
Publisher Springer
Date 2022 Jan 4
PMID 34981444
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Effect of Uterine Weight on the Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Hysterectomy in Benign Indications.

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.


Trends in surgical approach to hysterectomy and perioperative outcomes in Michigan hospitals from 2010 through 2020.

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.

References
1.
Carbonnel M, Moawad G, Tarazi M, Revaux A, Kennel T, Favre-Inhofer A . Robotic Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: What Have We Learned from a Decade?. JSLS. 2021; 25(1). PMC: 8035818. DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2020.00091. View

2.
Settnes A, Topsoee M, Moeller C, Dueholm M, Kopp T, Norrbom C . Reduced Complications Following Implementation of Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Danish Population-based Cohort Study of Minimally Invasive Benign Gynecologic Surgery between 2004 and 2018. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 27(6):1344-1353.e3. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.11.005. View

3.
Albright B, Witte T, Tofte A, Chou J, Black J, Desai V . Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 23(1):18-27. PMC: 4698211. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.003. View

4.
Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schar G . Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120(3):604-11. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265b61a. View

5.
Mowat A, Maher C, Ballard E . Surgical outcomes for low-volume vs high-volume surgeons in gynecology surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215(1):21-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.048. View