Minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications-surgical volume matters: a retrospective cohort study comparing complications of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies
- PMID: 34981444
- DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01340-2
Minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications-surgical volume matters: a retrospective cohort study comparing complications of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of perioperative complications in robotic-assisted hysterectomies performed by high-volume robotic surgeons compared to conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies performed by all gynecologic surgeons. This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single-center community based hospital and medical center. A total of 332 patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications were included in this study. Half of these patients (n = 166) underwent conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy and the other half underwent a robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. The main outcome measures included composite complication rate, estimated blood loss (EBL), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Median (IQR) EBL was significantly lower for robotic hysterectomy [22.5 (30) mL] compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy [100 (150) mL, p < 0.0001]. LOS was significantly shorter for robotic hysterectomy (1.0 ± 0.2 day) compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy (1.2 ± 0.7 days, p = 0.04). Despite averaging 3.0 (IQR 1.0) concomitant procedures compared to 0 (IQR 1.0) for the conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies, the incidence of any type of complication was lower in the robotic hysterectomy group (2 vs. 6%, p = 0.05). Finally, in a logistic regression model controlling for multiple confounders, robotic-assisted hysterectomy was less likely to result in a perioperative complication compared to traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy [odds ratio (95% CI) = 0.2 (0.1, 0.90), p = 0.04]. In conclusion, robotic-assisted hysterectomy may reduce complications compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy when performed by high volume surgeons, especially in the setting of other concomitant gynecologic surgeries.
Keywords: High volume surgeon; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive gynecology; Robotic-assisted hysterectomy; Surgical Complications.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Similar articles
-
Gynecologic Surgical Subspecialty Training Decreases Surgical Complications in Benign Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2024 Mar;31(3):250-257. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2023.12.011. Epub 2023 Dec 26. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2024. PMID: 38151094
-
Patient, surgeon, and hospital disparities associated with benign hysterectomy approach and perioperative complications.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May;216(5):497.e1-497.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.12.020. Epub 2016 Dec 26. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017. PMID: 28034651 Free PMC article.
-
The impact of surgeon volume on perioperative adverse events in women undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy for the large uterus.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Nov;219(5):490.e1-490.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.003. Epub 2018 Sep 14. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018. PMID: 30222939
-
Incidence and Prevention of Vaginal Cuff Dehiscence after Laparoscopic and Robotic Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Mar;28(3):710-720. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2020.12.016. Epub 2021 Jan 5. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 33348012
-
Infectious complications of laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019 Mar;29(3):518-530. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2018-000098. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019. PMID: 30833440
Cited by
-
Effect of Uterine Weight on the Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Hysterectomy in Benign Indications.Cureus. 2024 Mar 20;16(3):e56602. doi: 10.7759/cureus.56602. eCollection 2024 Mar. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 38646385 Free PMC article.
-
Robotic-assisted vs. open ureteral reimplantation: a multicentre comparison.World J Urol. 2024 Mar 26;42(1):194. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04875-9. World J Urol. 2024. PMID: 38530438
-
Letter to the Editor "From practice to perfection-complications and operative time learning curves in benign robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy".J Robot Surg. 2025 Jul 1;19(1):340. doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02513-z. J Robot Surg. 2025. PMID: 40591045 No abstract available.
-
Trends in surgical approach to hysterectomy and perioperative outcomes in Michigan hospitals from 2010 through 2020.J Robot Surg. 2023 Oct;17(5):2211-2220. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01631-w. Epub 2023 Jun 6. J Robot Surg. 2023. PMID: 37280406
References
-
- Aarts JWM, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BJ, Kluivers KB (2015) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD003677. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5 - DOI
-
- Matteson, KA, Butts, SF. Committee Opinion No 701: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(6):e155–e159. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002112 (PMID: 28538495) - DOI
-
- Carbonnel M, Moawad GN, Tarazi MM, Revaux A, Kennel T, Favre-Inhofer A, Ayoubi JM (2021) Robotic hysterectomy for benign indications: what have we learned from a decade? JSLS 25(1):e2020.00091. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2020.00091.PMID:33879990;PMCID:PMC8035818 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Swenson CW, Kamdar NS, Harris JA, Uppal S, Campbell DA Jr, Morgan DM (2016) Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(5):650 - DOI
-
- Settnes A, Topsoee MF, Moeller C, Dueholm M, Kopp TI, Norrbom C, Rasmussen SC, Froeslev PA, Joergensen A, Dreisler E, Gimbel H (2020) Reduced complications following implementation of laparoscopic hysterectomy: a danish population-based cohort study of minimally invasive benign gynecologic surgery between 2004 and 2018. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 27(6):1344-1353.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.11.005 (Epub 2019 Nov 15 PMID: 31740432) - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources