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

被引:0
|
作者
Michael G. Baracy
Marco Martinez
Karen Hagglund
Fareeza Afzal
Sanjana Kulkarni
Logan Corey
Muhammad Faisal Aslam
机构
[1] Ascension St. John Hospital,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
[2] Ascension St. John Hospital,Department of Biomedical Investigations and Research
[3] Wayne State University,Department of Gynecologic Oncology
[4] Ascension St. John Hospital,Department of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery
[5] Michigan State University,Associate Clinical Professor, College of Osteopathic Medicine
来源
Journal of Robotic Surgery | 2022年 / 16卷
关键词
Robotic-assisted hysterectomy; Minimally invasive gynecology; Laparoscopy; High volume surgeon; Surgical Complications;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1199 / 1207
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Surgical volume and conversion rate in laparoscopic hysterectomy: does volume matter? A multicenter retrospective cohort study
    José H. M. Keurentjes
    Justine M. Briët
    Geertruida H. de Bock
    Marian J. E. Mourits
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2018, 32 : 1021 - 1026
  • [22] Surgical Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgical Staging for Endometrial Cancer Are Equivalent to Traditional Laparoscopic Staging at a Minimally Invasive Surgical Center EDITORIAL COMMENT
    Cardenas-Goicoechea, Joel
    Adams, Sarah
    Bhat, Suneel B.
    Randall, Thomas C.
    OBSTETRICAL & GYNECOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2010, 65 (07) : 434 - 435
  • [23] Perioperative management of surgical correction of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: A comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive techniques
    Julien-Marsollier, Florence
    Loiselle, Maud
    Brouns, Kelly
    Brasher, Christopher
    Dahmani, Souhayl
    PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, 2022, 32 (08) : 973 - 975
  • [24] RISK FACTORS FOR VAGINAL MESH EXPOSURE AFTER ROBOTIC-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC SACROCOLPOPEXY: A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
    EL-Khawand, Dominique
    Wehbe, Salim
    Goldstein, Howard
    Whitmore, Kristene
    Vakili, Babak
    NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 2012, 31 (02) : 220 - 220
  • [25] Reduced Complications Following Implementation of Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Danish Population-based Cohort Study of Minimally Invasive Benign Gynecologic Surgery between 2004 and 2018
    Settnes, Annette
    Topsoee, Marta Fink
    Moeller, Charlotte
    Dueholm, Margit
    Kopp, Tine Iskov
    Norrbom, Christina
    Rasmussen, Steen Christian
    Froeslev, Pia Arnum
    Joergensen, Annemette
    Dreisler, Eva
    Gimbel, Helga
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 27 (06) : 1344 - +
  • [26] Comparison of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: A propensity-matched study from a single high-volume institution
    Ekeke, Chigozirim N.
    Kuiper, Gino M.
    Luketich, James D.
    Ruppert, Kristine M.
    Copelli, Susan J.
    Baker, Nicholas
    Levy, Ryan M.
    Awais, Omar
    Christie, Neil A.
    Dhupar, Rajeev
    Pennathur, Arjun
    Sarkaria, Inderpal S.
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2023, 166 (02): : 374 - +
  • [27] Health-related quality of life after robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for women with endometrial cancer - A prospective cohort study
    Herling, Suzanne F.
    Moller, Ann M.
    Palle, Connie
    Thomsen, Thordis
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2016, 140 (01) : 107 - 113
  • [28] Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted revisional bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database
    Edwin Acevedo
    Michael Mazzei
    Huaqing Zhao
    Xiaoning Lu
    Michael A. Edwards
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2020, 34 : 1573 - 1584
  • [29] Outcomes in conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric surgery: a retrospective, case–controlled study of the MBSAQIP database
    Edwin Acevedo
    Michael Mazzei
    Huaqing Zhao
    Xiaoning Lu
    Rohit Soans
    Michael A. Edwards
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2020, 34 : 1353 - 1365
  • [30] Effect of annualized surgeon volume on major surgical complications for abdominal and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer in China, 2004–2016: a retrospective cohort study
    Cong Liang
    Weili Li
    Xiaoyun Liu
    Hongwei Zhao
    Lu Yin
    Mingwei Li
    Yu Guo
    Jinghe Lang
    Xiaonong Bin
    Ping Liu
    Chunlin Chen
    BMC Women's Health, 23