Advertisement

Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 641–645 | Cite as

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

  • Natasha Gupta
  • Shanti Mohling
  • Rebecca Mckendrick
  • Rayan Elkattah
  • Jenny Holcombe
  • Robert S. Furr
  • Todd Boren
  • Stephen DePasquale
Original Article
  • 130 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Robotic surgery Hysterectomy Large uteri Mini-laparotomy Morcellation Specimen removal 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Natasha Gupta, Shanti Mohling, Rebecca Mckendrick M.Sc, Rayan Elkattah, Jenny Holcombe, Robert S. Furr, Todd Boren and Stephen DePasquale declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Boggess JF et al (2009) Perioperative outcomes of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign cases with complex pathology. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):585–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Visco AG, Advincula AP (2008) Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 112(6):1369–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holloway RW, Patel SD, Ahmad S (2009) Robotic surgery in gynecology. Scand J Surg 98(2):96–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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):286–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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):260–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen CC, Falcone T (2009) Robotic gynecologic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Obstet Gynecol 52(3):335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Advincula AP, Wang K (2009) Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(3):291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reza M et al (2010) Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg 97(12):1772–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylan E et al (2017) Contained morcellation: review of current methods and future directions. Front Surg 4:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) (2014) UPDATED Laparoscopic uterine power morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy: FDA safety communication, USFDA Administration, EditorGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kho KA, Anderson TL, Nezhat CH (2014) Intracorporeal electromechanical tissue morcellation: a critical review and recommendations for clinical practice. Obstet Gynecol 124(4):787–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brolmann HA et al (2016) Laparoscopic power morcellation of presumed fibroids. Minerva Ginecol 68(3):352–363PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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):1174–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Srouji SS, Kaser DJ, Gargiulo AR (2015) Techniques for contained morcellation in gynecologic surgery. Fertil Steril 103(4):e34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stine JE, Clarke-Pearson DL, Gehrig PA (2014) Uterine morcellation at the time of hysterectomy: techniques, risks, and recommendations. Obstet Gynecol Surv 69(7):415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kho KA, Brown DN (2016) Surgical treatment of uterine fibroids within a containment system and without power morcellation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 59(1):85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falcone T, Walters MD (2008) Hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 111(3):753–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kovac SR (2000) Hysterectomy outcomes in patients with similar indications. Obstet Gynecol 95(6 Pt 1):787–793PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kovac SR, Cruikshank SH (1996) Guidelines to determine the route of oophorectomy with hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(6):1483–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wright JD et al (2016) Trends in use and outcomes of women undergoing hysterectomy with electric power morcellation. JAMA 316(8):877–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benedetti-Panici P et al (1996) Surgery by minilaparotomy in benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol 87(3):456–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Muzii L et al (2007) Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus minilaparotomy hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(5):610–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glasser MH (2005) Minilaparotomy myomectomy: a minimally invasive alternative for the large fibroid uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(3):275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dorsey JH et al (1996) Costs and charges associated with three alternative techniques of hysterectomy. N Engl J Med 335(7):476–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pasic RP et al (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(6):730–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natasha Gupta
    • 1
    • 3
  • Shanti Mohling
    • 1
  • Rebecca Mckendrick
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rayan Elkattah
    • 1
  • Jenny Holcombe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert S. Furr
    • 1
  • Todd Boren
    • 2
  • Stephen DePasquale
    • 2
  1. 1.Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Tennessee College of MedicineChattanoogaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Gynecologic OncologyUniversity of Tennessee College of MedicineChattanoogaUSA
  3. 3.Dept. of Obstetrics and GynecologyErlanger Health SystemChattanoogaUSA

Personalised recommendations