Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2010

01-12-2010 | Original Article

Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison of outcomes and cost

Authors: Darron Halliday, Susie Lau, Zvi Vaknin, Claire Deland, Mark Levental, Elizabeth McNamara, Raphael Gotlieb, Rebecca Kaufer, Jeffrey How, Eva Cohen, Walter H. Gotlieb

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 4/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Operative and peri-operative outcomes, complications, and cost for radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer with negative sentinel nodes have been compared for robotics and laparotomy. Forty patients underwent radical hysterectomy with/out bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, for early-stage cervical cancer. All cases were performed by one of two surgeons, at a single institution (16 robotic, 24 laparotomy). The data for the robotic group were collected prospectively and compared with data for a historic cohort who underwent laparotomy. The data included demographics and peri-operative variables including operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node count, hospital stay, and complications. Additionally, real direct hospital cost was compared for both modalities. Patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy experienced longer operative time than the laparotomy cohort (351 min vs. 283 min P = 0.0001). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower for the robotic cohort than for the laparotomy cohort (106 ml vs. 546 ml P < 0.0001). The minor complication rate was lower in the robotic cohort than for laparotomy (19% vs. 63% P = 0.003). Average hospital stay for the robotic patients was significantly shorter than for those undergoing laparotomy (1.9 days versus 7.2 days, P < 0.0001). Lymph node retrieval did not differ between the two groups (robotic 15 nodes, laparotomy 13 nodes). The total average peri-operative costs for radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy completed via laparotomy was CAN $11,764 ± 6,790, and for robotic assistance 8,183 ± 1,089 (P = 0.002). When amortization of the robot was included, there remained a trend in favor of the robotic approach, but it did not reach statistical significance. Whereas robotics takes longer to perform than traditional laparotomy, it provides the patient with a shorter hospital stay, less need for pain medications, and reduced peri-operative morbidity. In addition real average hospital costs tend to be lower.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Committee on Practice B-G (2002) ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and treatment of cervical carcinomas, number 35. Obstet Gynecol 99(5 Pt 1):855–867 Committee on Practice B-G (2002) ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and treatment of cervical carcinomas, number 35. Obstet Gynecol 99(5 Pt 1):855–867
2.
go back to reference Hacker N, Friedlander M (2010) Cervical cancer. In: Bereck L, Neville N (eds) Berek & Hacker’s gynecologic oncology, 5th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 341–395 Hacker N, Friedlander M (2010) Cervical cancer. In: Bereck L, Neville N (eds) Berek & Hacker’s gynecologic oncology, 5th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 341–395
3.
go back to reference Frumovitz M, Sun C, MR M, Bevers M, Brown J, Slomovitz B et al (2007) Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 110(5):1174–1175. doi:10.097/01.AOG.0000288514.69638.a6 Frumovitz M, Sun C, MR M, Bevers M, Brown J, Slomovitz B et al (2007) Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 110(5):1174–1175. doi:10.​097/​01.​AOG.​0000288514.​69638.​a6
4.
go back to reference Nezhat F (2008) Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: laparoscopy versus robotics. Gynecol Oncol 111(2, Suppl 1):S29–S32CrossRefPubMed Nezhat F (2008) Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: laparoscopy versus robotics. Gynecol Oncol 111(2, Suppl 1):S29–S32CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Jung YW, Kim SW, Kim YT (2009) Recent advances of robotic surgery and single port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology. J Gynecol Oncol 20(3):137–144CrossRefPubMed Jung YW, Kim SW, Kim YT (2009) Recent advances of robotic surgery and single port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology. J Gynecol Oncol 20(3):137–144CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R, Woo R, Reyes R, Hernandez-Boussard T et al (2010) A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 147:830–839CrossRefPubMed Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R, Woo R, Reyes R, Hernandez-Boussard T et al (2010) A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 147:830–839CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN et al (2008) A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(4):357 e1–357 e7 Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN et al (2008) A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(4):357 e1–357 e7
8.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMed Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Shepherd JH (1996) Cervical and vulva cancer: changes in FIGO definitions of staging. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103(5):405–406PubMed Shepherd JH (1996) Cervical and vulva cancer: changes in FIGO definitions of staging. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103(5):405–406PubMed
10.
go back to reference Platt JF, Bree RL, Davidson D (1990) Ultrasound of the normal nongravid uterus: correlation with gross and histopathology. J Clin Ultrasound 18(1):15–19CrossRefPubMed Platt JF, Bree RL, Davidson D (1990) Ultrasound of the normal nongravid uterus: correlation with gross and histopathology. J Clin Ultrasound 18(1):15–19CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Boggess JF (2007) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: evolution of a new surgical paradigm. J Robot Surg 1(1):31–37CrossRef Boggess JF (2007) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: evolution of a new surgical paradigm. J Robot Surg 1(1):31–37CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Feltmate CM (2008) Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):425–430CrossRefPubMed Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Feltmate CM (2008) Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):425–430CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Maggioni A, Minig L, Zanagnolo V, Peiretti M, Sanguineti F, Bocciolone L et al (2009) Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study. Gynecol Oncol 115(1):60–64CrossRefPubMed Maggioni A, Minig L, Zanagnolo V, Peiretti M, Sanguineti F, Bocciolone L et al (2009) Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study. Gynecol Oncol 115(1):60–64CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):407–411CrossRefPubMed Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):407–411CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Levenback C et al (2008) A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(5):584–588CrossRefPubMed Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Levenback C et al (2008) A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(5):584–588CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison of outcomes and cost
Authors
Darron Halliday
Susie Lau
Zvi Vaknin
Claire Deland
Mark Levental
Elizabeth McNamara
Raphael Gotlieb
Rebecca Kaufer
Jeffrey How
Eva Cohen
Walter H. Gotlieb
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 4/2010
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0205-z

Other articles of this Issue 4/2010

Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2010 Go to the issue