J Gynecol Oncol.  2011 Dec;22(4):253-259. 10.3802/jgo.2011.22.4.253.

Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus da Vinci robotic hysterectomy: is using the robot beneficial?

• Soto E
• Lo Y
• Friedman K
• Soto C
• Nezhat F
• Chuang L
• Gretz H

• KMID: 2173627
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2011.22.4.253

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To compare the outcomes of total laparoscopic to robotic approach for hysterectomy and all indicated procedures after controlling for surgeon and other confounding factors.
METHODS
Retrospective chart review of all consecutive cases of total laparoscopic and da Vinci robotic hysterectomies between August 2007 and July 2009 by two gynecologic oncology surgeons. Our primary outcome measure was operative procedure time. Secondary measures included complications, conversion to laparotomy, estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay. A mixed model with a random intercept was applied to control for surgeon and other confounders. Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for the statistical analysis.
RESULTS
The 124 patients included in the study consisted of 77 total laparoscopic hysterectomies and 47 robotic hysterectomies. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics, indications for surgery and additional procedures performed. The difference between the mean operative procedure time for the total laparoscopic hysterectomy group (111.4 minutes) and the robotic hysterectomy group (150.8 minutes) was statistically significant (p=0.0001) despite the fact that the specimens obtained in the total laparoscopic hysterectomy group were significantly larger (125 g vs. 94 g, p=0.002). The robotic hysterectomy group had statistically less estimated blood loss than the total laparoscopic hysterectomy group (131.5 mL vs. 207.7 mL, p=0.0105) however no patients required a blood transfusion in either group. Both groups had a comparable rate of conversion to laparotomy, intraoperative complications, and length of hospital stay.
CONCLUSION
Total laparoscopic hysterectomy can be performed safely and in less operative time compared to robotic hysterectomy when performed by trained surgeons.

Keyword

Total laparoscopic hysterectomy; da Vinci robot; Robotic hysterectomy

MeSH Terms

Blood Transfusion
Humans
Hysterectomy
Intraoperative Complications
Laparotomy
Length of Stay
Operative Time
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Retrospective Studies
Surgical Procedures, Operative

Reference

1. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Nationwide inpatient sample [Internet]. 2011. cited 2011 Sep 20. Rockville, MD: Available from: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp.

2. Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009. (3):CD003677.

3. Wu JM, Wechter ME, Geller EJ, Nguyen TV, Visco AG. Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol. 2007. 110:1091–1095.

4. Reich H. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: indications, techniques and outcomes. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007. 19:337–344.

5. Kim YT, Kim SW, Jung YW. Robotic surgery in gynecologic field. Yonsei Med J. 2008. 49:886–890.

6. Advincula AP. Surgical techniques: robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system. Int J Med Robot. 2006. 2:305–311.

7. Chen CC, Falcone T. Robotic gynecologic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009. 52:335–343.

8. Hasson HM. Open laparoscopy. Biomed Bull. 1984. 5:1–6.

9. Payne TN, Dauterive FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008. 15:286–291.

10. Shashoua AR, Gill D, Locher SR. Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS. 2009. 13:364–369.

11. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Gemer O, Bhagan L, Nezhat C. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience. JSLS. 2009. 13:125–128.

12. Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS, Kim KH, Carlson MJ, Phillips GS, et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: Robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol. 2009. 113:36–41.

13. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, et al. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008. 199:360.e1–360.e9.

14. Jung YW, Lee DW, Kim SW, Nam EJ, Kim JH, Kim JW, et al. Robot-assisted staging using three robotic arms for endometrial cancer: comparison to laparoscopy and laparotomy at a single institution. J Surg Oncol. 2010. 101:116–121.

15. Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol. 2008. 111:407–411.

16. Bartos P, Struppl D, Trhlik M, Czudek S, Skrovina M, Adamcik L, et al. Da vinci robotic surgery in gynaecological oncology: a critical interim appraisal. Ceska Gynekol. 2007. 72:354–359.