Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2018

01-12-2018 | Original Article

Perioperative outcomes of robotic hysterectomy with mini-laparotomy versus open hysterectomy for uterus weighing more than 250 g

Authors: Natasha Gupta, Shanti Mohling, Rebecca Mckendrick, Rayan Elkattah, Jenny Holcombe, Robert S. Furr, Todd Boren, Stephen DePasquale

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

To compare perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy and extraction of specimen via mini-laparotomy (RHML) versus open hysterectomy (OH) when uterus weighs more than 250 g. To study the factors determining the length of hospital stay in 2 groups. A retrospective analysis of all hysterectomies performed for uterus weighing more than 250 g from the year 2012 to 2015 was conducted. A total of 140 patients were divided into 2 groups based on the type of surgery; RHML (n = 82) and OH (n = 58). Mini-laparotomy consisted of a customised incision connecting 2 left lateral port sites for specimen extraction after completing the hysterectomy robotically. Patient factors and perioperative outcomes were compared using Student’s t tests and Chi-square analysis. Mean length of stay (RHML = 1.4 days; OH = 3.4 days), estimated blood loss (EBL) (RHML = 119.9 ml; OH = 547.5 ml) and operative time (RHML = 191.5 min; OH = 162.8 min) were significantly different. No significant differences were noted for patient BMI, age, comorbidities, intraoperative complications, pathology of uterus and uterus weight. Postoperative complications were significantly different between two groups (RHML = 6.0%; OH = 15.5%; p = .021). None of the patients stayed less than 24 h in OH group compared to 59.8% patients in RHML group. Type of procedure (p = .004) and EBL (p = .002) significantly predicted the length of stay. Patients undergoing RHML have significantly shorter length of stay, EBL and postoperative complications than OH. The operative time for RHML was longer than OH, but the overall decreased length of stay overcomes this disadvantage. RHML approach retains the benefits of da Vinci, while simultaneously preserving the specimen.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Boggess JF et al (2009) Perioperative outcomes of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign cases with complex pathology. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):585–593CrossRef Boggess JF et al (2009) Perioperative outcomes of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign cases with complex pathology. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):585–593CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Visco AG, Advincula AP (2008) Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 112(6):1369–1384CrossRef Visco AG, Advincula AP (2008) Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 112(6):1369–1384CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Holloway RW, Patel SD, Ahmad S (2009) Robotic surgery in gynecology. Scand J Surg 98(2):96–109CrossRef Holloway RW, Patel SD, Ahmad S (2009) Robotic surgery in gynecology. Scand J Surg 98(2):96–109CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–291CrossRef Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–291CrossRef
5.
go back to reference ElSahwi KS et al (2012) Comparison between 155 cases of robotic vs. 150 cases of open surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 124(2):260–264CrossRef ElSahwi KS et al (2012) Comparison between 155 cases of robotic vs. 150 cases of open surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 124(2):260–264CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Chen CC, Falcone T (2009) Robotic gynecologic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Obstet Gynecol 52(3):335–343CrossRef Chen CC, Falcone T (2009) Robotic gynecologic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Obstet Gynecol 52(3):335–343CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Advincula AP, Wang K (2009) Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(3):291–301CrossRef Advincula AP, Wang K (2009) Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(3):291–301CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Reza M et al (2010) Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg 97(12):1772–1783CrossRef Reza M et al (2010) Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg 97(12):1772–1783CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Taylan E et al (2017) Contained morcellation: review of current methods and future directions. Front Surg 4:15CrossRef Taylan E et al (2017) Contained morcellation: review of current methods and future directions. Front Surg 4:15CrossRef
10.
go back to reference US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) (2014) UPDATED Laparoscopic uterine power morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy: FDA safety communication, USFDA Administration, Editor US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) (2014) UPDATED Laparoscopic uterine power morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy: FDA safety communication, USFDA Administration, Editor
11.
go back to reference Kho KA, Anderson TL, Nezhat CH (2014) Intracorporeal electromechanical tissue morcellation: a critical review and recommendations for clinical practice. Obstet Gynecol 124(4):787–793CrossRef Kho KA, Anderson TL, Nezhat CH (2014) Intracorporeal electromechanical tissue morcellation: a critical review and recommendations for clinical practice. Obstet Gynecol 124(4):787–793CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Brolmann HA et al (2016) Laparoscopic power morcellation of presumed fibroids. Minerva Ginecol 68(3):352–363PubMed Brolmann HA et al (2016) Laparoscopic power morcellation of presumed fibroids. Minerva Ginecol 68(3):352–363PubMed
13.
go back to reference Barron KI et al (2015) Association of the US Food and Drug Administration morcellation warning with rates of minimally invasive hysterectomy and myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol 126(6):1174–1180CrossRef Barron KI et al (2015) Association of the US Food and Drug Administration morcellation warning with rates of minimally invasive hysterectomy and myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol 126(6):1174–1180CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Srouji SS, Kaser DJ, Gargiulo AR (2015) Techniques for contained morcellation in gynecologic surgery. Fertil Steril 103(4):e34CrossRef Srouji SS, Kaser DJ, Gargiulo AR (2015) Techniques for contained morcellation in gynecologic surgery. Fertil Steril 103(4):e34CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Stine JE, Clarke-Pearson DL, Gehrig PA (2014) Uterine morcellation at the time of hysterectomy: techniques, risks, and recommendations. Obstet Gynecol Surv 69(7):415–425CrossRef Stine JE, Clarke-Pearson DL, Gehrig PA (2014) Uterine morcellation at the time of hysterectomy: techniques, risks, and recommendations. Obstet Gynecol Surv 69(7):415–425CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Kho KA, Brown DN (2016) Surgical treatment of uterine fibroids within a containment system and without power morcellation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 59(1):85–92CrossRef Kho KA, Brown DN (2016) Surgical treatment of uterine fibroids within a containment system and without power morcellation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 59(1):85–92CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Falcone T, Walters MD (2008) Hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 111(3):753–767CrossRef Falcone T, Walters MD (2008) Hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 111(3):753–767CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kovac SR (2000) Hysterectomy outcomes in patients with similar indications. Obstet Gynecol 95(6 Pt 1):787–793PubMed Kovac SR (2000) Hysterectomy outcomes in patients with similar indications. Obstet Gynecol 95(6 Pt 1):787–793PubMed
19.
go back to reference Kovac SR, Cruikshank SH (1996) Guidelines to determine the route of oophorectomy with hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(6):1483–1488CrossRef Kovac SR, Cruikshank SH (1996) Guidelines to determine the route of oophorectomy with hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(6):1483–1488CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Wright JD et al (2016) Trends in use and outcomes of women undergoing hysterectomy with electric power morcellation. JAMA 316(8):877–878CrossRef Wright JD et al (2016) Trends in use and outcomes of women undergoing hysterectomy with electric power morcellation. JAMA 316(8):877–878CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Benedetti-Panici P et al (1996) Surgery by minilaparotomy in benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol 87(3):456–459CrossRef Benedetti-Panici P et al (1996) Surgery by minilaparotomy in benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol 87(3):456–459CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Muzii L et al (2007) Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus minilaparotomy hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(5):610–615CrossRef Muzii L et al (2007) Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus minilaparotomy hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(5):610–615CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Glasser MH (2005) Minilaparotomy myomectomy: a minimally invasive alternative for the large fibroid uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(3):275–283CrossRef Glasser MH (2005) Minilaparotomy myomectomy: a minimally invasive alternative for the large fibroid uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(3):275–283CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Dorsey JH et al (1996) Costs and charges associated with three alternative techniques of hysterectomy. N Engl J Med 335(7):476–482CrossRef Dorsey JH et al (1996) Costs and charges associated with three alternative techniques of hysterectomy. N Engl J Med 335(7):476–482CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Pasic RP et al (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(6):730–738CrossRef Pasic RP et al (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(6):730–738CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Perioperative outcomes of robotic hysterectomy with mini-laparotomy versus open hysterectomy for uterus weighing more than 250 g
Authors
Natasha Gupta
Shanti Mohling
Rebecca Mckendrick
Rayan Elkattah
Jenny Holcombe
Robert S. Furr
Todd Boren
Stephen DePasquale
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0792-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Journal of Robotic Surgery 4/2018 Go to the issue