Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2/2012

01-02-2012 | General Gynecology

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs

Authors: Kate Nash, Joe Feinglass, Charles Zei, Guanning Lu, Biftu Mengesha, Christina Lewicky-Gaupp, Alexander Lin

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To compare clinical and effectiveness outcomes between robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM) and abdominal myomectomy (AM).

Study design

Records were reviewed for the first 27 RALM procedures at our institution. Age, BMI, insurance status, race, uterine size, and operative indication were used to select comparable patients who had undergone AM. Clinical and efficiency outcomes were compared stratifying for uterine size, specimen weight, and matched propensity scores.

Results

IV hydromorphone use was significantly lower for RALM (P < 0.01), with no significant differences in blood loss or complications. RALM patients had significantly shorter hospital stays; however, total hospital charges were higher (P < 0.0001). This likely reflects longer operating room time (P < 0.0001), which was magnified as specimen size increased (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

RALM patients require less IV hydromorphone, have shorter hospital stays, and have generally equivalent clinical outcomes compared with AM patients. Additionally, as specimen size increased, the operative efficiency of RALM decreased compared with AM.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Holzer A, Jirecek ST, Illievich UM, Huber J, Wenzl RJ (2006) Laparoscopic versus open myomectomy: a double-blind study to evaluate postoperative pain. Anesth Analg 102(5):1480–1484PubMedCrossRef Holzer A, Jirecek ST, Illievich UM, Huber J, Wenzl RJ (2006) Laparoscopic versus open myomectomy: a double-blind study to evaluate postoperative pain. Anesth Analg 102(5):1480–1484PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Parker WH, Iacampo K, Long T (2007) Uterine rupture after laparoscopic removal of a pedunculated myoma. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(3):362–364PubMedCrossRef Parker WH, Iacampo K, Long T (2007) Uterine rupture after laparoscopic removal of a pedunculated myoma. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(3):362–364PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Banas T, Klimek M, Fugiel A, Skotniczny K (2005) Spontaneous uterine rupture at 35 weeks’ gestation, 3 years after laparoscopic myomectomy, without signs of fetal distress. J Obstet and Gynaecol Res 31(6):527–530CrossRef Banas T, Klimek M, Fugiel A, Skotniczny K (2005) Spontaneous uterine rupture at 35 weeks’ gestation, 3 years after laparoscopic myomectomy, without signs of fetal distress. J Obstet and Gynaecol Res 31(6):527–530CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Barakat EE, Bedaiwy MA, Zimberg S, Nutter B, Nosseir M, Falcone T (2011) Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet and Gynecol 117(2):256–266. Barakat EE, Bedaiwy MA, Zimberg S, Nutter B, Nosseir M, Falcone T (2011) Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet and Gynecol 117(2):256–266.
6.
go back to reference Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau St, Ransom SB (2007) Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(6):698–705PubMedCrossRef Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau St, Ransom SB (2007) Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(6):698–705PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Ascher-Walsh CJ, Capes TL (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(3):306–310PubMedCrossRef Ascher-Walsh CJ, Capes TL (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(3):306–310PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Rosenbaum PR (1989) The role of known effects in observational studies. Biometrics 45(2):557–569CrossRef Rosenbaum PR (1989) The role of known effects in observational studies. Biometrics 45(2):557–569CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Yuen PM, Yu KM, Yip SK, Lau WC, Rogers MS, Chang A (1997) A randomized prospective study of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the management of benign ovarian masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177(10):109–114PubMedCrossRef Yuen PM, Yu KM, Yip SK, Lau WC, Rogers MS, Chang A (1997) A randomized prospective study of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the management of benign ovarian masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177(10):109–114PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs–the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704PubMedCrossRef Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs–the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Bocca S, Stadtmauer L, Oehninger S (2007) Uncomplicated full term pregnancy after DaVinci-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. Reprod Biomed Online 14(2):246–249PubMedCrossRef Bocca S, Stadtmauer L, Oehninger S (2007) Uncomplicated full term pregnancy after DaVinci-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. Reprod Biomed Online 14(2):246–249PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al (2009) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302:1557–1564PubMedCrossRef Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al (2009) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302:1557–1564PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs
Authors
Kate Nash
Joe Feinglass
Charles Zei
Guanning Lu
Biftu Mengesha
Christina Lewicky-Gaupp
Alexander Lin
Publication date
01-02-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-1999-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2/2012 Go to the issue