Robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery in an older population: A comparison study

被引:1
|
作者
Moore, Madison S. [4 ]
Vo, Elise H. [2 ]
Bhattarai, Bikash [2 ,3 ]
Farley, John H. [1 ,2 ]
Monk, Bradley J. [1 ,2 ,3 ,6 ]
Willmott, Lyndsay J. [1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ]
Chase, Dana M. [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Arizona, Coll Med, Phoenix, AZ USA
[2] Creighton Univ, Dign Hlth St Josephs Hosp & Med Ctr, Sch Med, Phoenix, AZ USA
[3] Maricopa Integrated Hlth Syst, Phoenix, AZ USA
[4] US Oncol Network, Arizona Oncol, Phoenix, AZ USA
[5] Virginia Piper Canc Care Network, Arizona Ctr Canc Care, Phoenix, AZ USA
[6] HonorHlth Res Inst, Phoenix, AZ USA
[7] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
关键词
Robotic surgery; Gynecology oncology; Older patient; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; OUTCOMES; AGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jgo.2023.101533
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Introduction: Robotic-assisted surgery in select patients has been shown to result in less peri-operative morbidity. Few studies have explored the association of robotic-assisted gynecology oncology surgery complication rates and increasing age. Our objective was to evaluate the peri- and postoperative complication rates in patients age 65 years or above in minimally-invasive robotic gynecologic surgery. Material and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of data from 765 consecutive minimally-invasive robotic-assisted surgeries performed by high-volume gynecologic oncologists. The patients were divided into "younger" patients aged <65 years and "older" patients aged & GE;65 years. The primary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications. Results: Of the 765 patients analyzed, 185 (24%) were & GE; 65. The intraoperative complication rate in patients <65 was 1.9% (11/580) versus 1.62% (3/185) in females & GE;65 (p = 0.808). The postoperative complication rate in patients <65 was 15.5% (90/580) versus 22.7% (42/185) in females & GE;65 (p = 0.328). We observed more postoperative complications with patients who had intraoperative complications compared to patients who developed post-operative complications without intraoperative complcations in our sample, but it was not statisticaly significant (OR = 2.78, p = 0.097). The average estimated blood loss was 137.5 ml (0-1000) for patients younger than 65 years and 134.81 ml (0-2200) in patients 65 years or older (p = 0.097). Discussion: Robotic gynecologic oncology surgery is common. When performed by expert surgeons, complications are not associated with increasing age.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Development and implementation results of an interactive computerized surgical checklist for robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery
    McCarroll M.L.
    Zullo M.D.
    Dante Roulette G.
    Mendise T.M.
    Ferris E.
    Zolton J.
    Andrews S.J.
    von Gruenigen V.E.
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2015, 9 (1) : 11 - 18
  • [42] Feasibility of Robotic-Assisted Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery in the Gynecologic Oncology Setting
    Moukarzel, Lea A.
    Fader, Amanda N.
    Tanner, Edward J.
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 24 (02) : 258 - 263
  • [43] Robotic-assisted colorectal procedures in a gynecologic oncology setting
    Feuer, G. A.
    Abied, C. S.
    Glasgow, M. A.
    Salmieri, S. S.
    Lakhi, N. A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GYNAECOLOGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 39 (05) : 718 - 723
  • [44] Robotic-Assisted Surgery and Navigation in Deformity Surgery
    Park, Christine
    Shabani, Saman
    Agarwal, Nitin
    Tan, Lee
    V. Mummaneni, Praveen
    NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2023, 34 (04) : 659 - 664
  • [45] Flow disruptions in robotic-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy: does robotic surgery introduce unforeseen challenges for gynecologic surgeons?
    Souders, Colby P.
    Catchpole, Ken
    Hannemann, Alex
    Lyon, Ronit
    Eilber, Karyn S.
    Bresee, Catherine
    Cohen, Tara
    Weigl, Matthias
    Anger, Jennifer T.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2019, 30 (12) : 2177 - 2182
  • [46] Flow disruptions in robotic-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy: does robotic surgery introduce unforeseen challenges for gynecologic surgeons?
    Colby P. Souders
    Ken Catchpole
    Alex Hannemann
    Ronit Lyon
    Karyn S. Eilber
    Catherine Bresee
    Tara Cohen
    Matthias Weigl
    Jennifer T. Anger
    International Urogynecology Journal, 2019, 30 : 2177 - 2182
  • [47] Advancements in Robotic-Assisted Spine Surgery
    Davidar, Daniel
    Jiang, Kelly
    Weber-Levine, Carly
    Bhimreddy, Meghana
    Theodore, Nicholas
    NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2024, 35 (02) : 263 - 272
  • [48] Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: For or against?
    Renaud, S.
    Santelmo, N.
    REVUE DES MALADIES RESPIRATOIRES, 2016, 33 (03) : 199 - 201
  • [49] Robotic-assisted surgery and treatment of urolithiasis
    Siddiqui, Khurram Mutahir
    Albala, David Mois
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2016, 36 : 673 - 675
  • [50] Robotic-Assisted Videothoracoscopic Mediastinal Surgery
    Straughan, David M.
    Fontaine, Jacques P.
    Toloza, Eric M.
    CANCER CONTROL, 2015, 22 (03) : 326 - 330