Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy

Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chicago, 60657, USA.
JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons (Impact Factor: 0.79). 01/2009; 13(3):364-9.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare patient characteristics, operative variables, and outcomes of 24 patients who underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) with 44 patients who underwent conventional TLH. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 44 patients with TLH and 24 patients with robotic TLH.
Robotic TLH was associated with a shorter hospital stay (1.0 vs 1.4 days, P=0.011) and a significant decrease in narcotic use (1.2 vs 5.0 units, P=0.002). EBL and droP in hemoglobin were not significantly different. The operative time was significantly longer in patients undergoing robotic TLH (142.2 vs 122.1 minutes, P=0.027). However, only need for laparoscopic morcellation, BMI, and uterine weight, not robotic use, were independently associated with increased operative times.
Robotic hysterectomy can be performed safely with comparable operative times to those of conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy. Postoperative measures were improved over measures for conventional laparoscopy.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To report the feasibility and description of robot-assisted presacral neurectomy (RPSN) and to compare outcomes with laparoscopic presacral neurectomy (LPSN). Prospective case series (Canadian Task Force classification III). Tertiary care center. Eighteen patients with central pelvic pain who underwent RPSN and 12 patients with central pelvic pain who underwent conventional LPSN in a metropolitan hospital between July 1, 2006, and April 30, 2008. The da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) was used for the robotic portion of the procedure. Availability of the robot was the sole determining factor for the procedure chosen. Bipolar, monopolar, and ultrasonic instruments were used for conventional laparoscopy. All patients underwent several additional procedures performed laparoscopically including adhesiolysis, treatment of endometriosis, appendectomy, enterolysis, and salpingo-ovariolysis. All presacral neurectomies in both groups were successfully completed by excising the hypogastric nervous plexus within the interiliac triangle. Presence of nerve ganglion and fibers was confirmed at pathologic analysis in all cases. Mean duration of presacral neurectomy, from incision of the posterior peritoneum at the sacral promontory to complete excision of the superior hypogastric nerve plexus at the interiliac triangle (Cotte triangle) was less than 10 minutes in both groups. Mean estimated blood loss was less than 30 mL for the entire surgical procedure (29.4 mL for RPSN, and 28.8 mL for LPSN). Median (range) patient age was 25 (19-44) years in the RPSN group, and 26 (18-36) years in the LPSN group; gravidity was 0, and parity was 0. All patients had central pelvic pain, the primary indication for presacral neurectomy. Concomitant indications for surgery included ovarian cysts, endometriosis, and adhesions. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. At analysis, follow-up ranged from 13 to 36 months. No short- or long-term complications related to the surgical procedure were reported. All patients reported subjective improvement of pelvic pain. Robot-assisted laparoscopic presacral neurectomy is feasible and safe, without added risk of short- or long-term complications. It compares favorably to the conventional laparoscopic approach of presacral neurectomy. The surgical robot provides a better angle and 3-dimensional visualization of the operating field, similar to laparotomy, and supplemented with magnification. This combined with elimination of hand tremor enables better surgeon control.
    Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 07/2010; 17(4):508-12. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.03.017 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cervical cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer in women worldwide. However, improvements in screening programs and treatment modalities have significantly reduced the morbidity and mortality of this disease. The discovery that infection with the human papillomavirus is a crucial part of the causative pathway in cervical cancer pathogenesis has revolutionized screening and prompted investigations into alternatives to traditional cytologic evaluation, which may be useful in low-resource settings. Concomitant with improved screening has been a shift towards greater detection of both preinvasive and early-stage neoplastic disease. Earlier detection not only allows for surgical management of disease, with the avoidance of chemotherapy and radiation, but also the possibility of fertility preservation. As surgical technologies advance to encompass minimally-invasive procedures, interventions for early-stage cervical cancer are becoming increasingly effective in disease eradication while permitting patients to maintain their quality of life.
    Clinical advances in hematology & oncology: H&O 08/2010; 8(8):547-55.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study reported here compares outcomes of three approaches to minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications, namely, robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RALH), laparoscopic-assisted vaginal (LAVH) and laparoscopic supracervical (LSH) hysterectomy. The total patient cohort comprised the first 237 patients undergoing robotic surgeries at our hospital between August 2007 and June 2009; the last 100 patients undergoing LAVH by the same surgeons between July 2006 and February 2008 and 165 patients undergoing LAVHs performed by nine surgeons between January 2008 and June 2009; 87 patients undergoing LSH by the same nine surgeons between January 2008 and June 2009. Among the RALH patients were cases of greater complexity: (1) higher prevalence of prior abdominopelvic surgery than that found among LAVH patients; (2) an increased number of procedures for endometriosis and pelvic reconstruction. Uterine weights also were greater in RALH patients [207.4 vs. 149.6 (LAVH; P < 0.001) and 141.1 g (LSH; P = 0.005)]. Despite case complexity, operative time was significantly lower in RALH than in LAVH (89.9 vs. 124.8 min, P < 0.001) and similar to that in LSH (89.6 min). Estimated blood loss was greater in LAVH (167.9 ml) than in RALH (59.0 ml, P < 0.001) or LSH (65.7 ml, P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay was shorter for RALH than for LAVH or LSH. Conversion and complication rates were low and similar across procedures. Multivariable regression indicated that LAVH, obesity, uterine weight ≥250 g and older age predicted significantly longer operative time. The learning curve for RALH demonstrated improved operative time over the case series. Our findings show the benefits of RALH over LAVH. Outcomes in RALH can be as good as or better than those in LSH, suggesting the latter should be the choice primarily for women desiring cervix-sparing surgery.
    Journal of Robotic Surgery 09/2010; 4(3):167-175. DOI:10.1007/s11701-010-0206-y


Available from