Review of strategies and factors to maximize cost-effectiveness of robotic hysterectomies and myomectomies in benign gynecological disease

  • Catherine Z. Wu
  • Jordan S. Klebanoff
  • Paul Tyan
  • Gaby N. MoawadEmail author
Review Article


Common benign gynecologic procedures include hysterectomies and myomectomies, with hysterectomy being the most common gynecologic procedure in the United States [1]. While historically performed via laparotomy, the field of gynecologic surgery was revolutionized with the advent of laparoscopic techniques, with the most recent advancement being the introduction of robotic-assisted surgery in 2005. Robotic surgery has all the benefits of laparoscopic surgery such as decreased blood loss, quicker return to activities, and shorter length of hospital stay. Additional robotic-specific advantages include but are not limited to improved ergonomics, 3D visualization, and intuitive surgical movements. Despite these advantages, one of the most commonly cited drawbacks of robotic surgery is the associated cost. While the initial cost to purchase the robotic console and its associated maintenance costs are relatively high, robotic surgery can be cost-effective when utilized correctly.

This article reviews application strategies and factors that can offset traditional costs and maximize the benefits of robotic surgery.


Hysterectomy Myomectomy Cost of robotic surgery 



No financial support was received for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Catherine Wu, Jordan Klebanoff, and Paul Tyan report no conflict of interest. Gaby Moawad is a speaker and consultant for Intuitive Surgical.


  1. 1.
    Jm Wu, Wechter ME, Geller EJ, Nguyen TV, Visco AG (2003) Hysterectomy rates in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 110(5):1091–1095Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Merrill RM (2001) Prevalence corrected hysterectomy rates and probabilities in Utah. Ann Epidemiol 11:127–135Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide (2011) AAGL position statement: route of hysterectomy to treat benign uterine disease. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(1):1–3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iavazzo C, Mamais I, Gkegkes ID (2016) Robotic assisted vs laparoscopic and/or open myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical evidence. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294:5–17Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Advincula AP, Wang K (2009) Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(3):291–301Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sinha R, Sanjay M, Rupa B, Kumari S (2015) Robotic surgery in gynecology. J Minim Access Surg Jan-Mar 11(1):50–59Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Papalekas E, Fisher J (2018) Trends in route of hysterectomy after the implementation of a comprehensive robotic training program. Minim Invasive Surg 2018:7362489. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Molina DC, Lambreton F, Majul RA (2018) Trends in robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 29(2):147–151. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cave J, Clarke S (2018) Paediatric robotic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 100(Suppl 7):4–13Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garas G, Tolley N (2018) Robotics in otorhinolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 100(Suppl 7):34–41Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alemzadeh H, Raman J, Levenson N, Kalbarczyk Z, Iyer RK (2016) Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLoS One 11(4):e0151470. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Health Services research on hysterectomy and alternatives. Accessed 10 Sep 2017
  13. 13.
    Korsholm M, Sorensen J, Mogensen O, Wu C, Karlsen K, Jensen PT (2018) A systematic review about costing methodology in robotic surgery: evidence for low quality in most of the studies. Health Econ Rev 8(1):21. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(6):730–738Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wright KN, Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Shah N, Einarsson JI (2012) Costs and outcomes of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic, and robotic hysterectomies. JSLS 16(4):519–524Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau S, Ransom SB (2007) Robot assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(6):698–705Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shah NT, Wright KN, Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Einarsson JI, Muto MG (2011) The feasibility of societal cost equivalence between robotic hysterectomy and alternate hysterectomy methods for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol Int. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Cohen S, Wright KN, Shah NT, Chavan N, Einarsson JI (2011) Increasing minimally invasive hysterectomy: effect on cost and complications. Obstet Gynecol 117(5):1142–1149Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iavazzo C, Papadopoulou EK, Gkegkes ID (2014) Cost assessment of robotics in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 40(11):2125–2134Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lönnerfors C, Reynisson P, Persson J (2015) A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robotic-assisted hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(1):78–86Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacobs EF, Boris R, Masterson TA (2013) Advances in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy over time. Prostate Cancer 2013:902686Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bogani G, Multinu F, Dowdy SC, Cliby WA, Wilson TO, Gostout BS et al (2016) Inorporating robotic-assisted surgery for endometrial cancer staging: analysis of morbidity and costs. Gynecol Oncol 141(2):218–224Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, Lewin SN, Charles AS, Kim JH et al (2012) Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(8):783–791Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Turunen H, Pakarinen P, Sjöberg J, Loukovaara M (2013) Laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted surgery for endometrial carcinoma in a centre with long laparoscopic experience. J Obstet Gynaecol 33(7):720–724Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cahais J, Lupinacci RM, Oberlin O, Goasguen N, Zuber K, Valverde A (2018) Less morbiditiy with robotic-assisted gastric bypass surgery than with laparoscopic surgery? Obes Surg 29(2):519–525. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laursen KR, Hyldgard VB, Jensen PT, Sogaard R (2018) Health care cost consequences of using robotic technology for hysterectomy: a register-based study of consecutive patients during 2006–2013. J Robot Surg 12(2):283–294Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moawad GN, Abi Khalil ED, Tyan P, Shu MK, Samuel D, Amdur R, Scheib SA, Marfori CQ (2018) Comparison of cost and operative outcomes of robotic hysterectomy compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy across different uterine weights. J Robotic Surg 11(4):433–439. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M (2018) Estimation of the acquisition and operating costs for robotic surgery. JAMA 320(8):835–836Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Knight J, Escobar PF (2014) Cost and robotic surgery in gynecology. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40(1):12–17Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robotic assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boyd LR, Novetsky AP, Curtin JP (2010) Effect of surgical volume on route of hysterectomy and short term morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 116(4):909–915Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brummer TH, Seppälä TT, Härkki PS (2008) National learning curve for laparoscopic hysterectomy and trends in hysterectomy in Finland 2000–2005. Hum Reprod 23(4):840–845Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Delto JC, Wayne G, Yanes R, Nieder AM, Bhandari A (2015) Reducing robotic prostatectomy costs by minimzing instrumentation. J Endourol 29(5):556–560Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bogliolo S, Ferrero S, Cassani C, Musacchi V, Zanellini F, Dominoni B et al (2016) Single-site versus multiport robotic hysrerectomy in benign gynecologic disease: a retrospective evaluation of surgical outcomes and cost analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(4):603–609Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moukarzel LA, Sinno AK, Fader AN, Tanner EJ (2017) Comparing single-site and multiport robotic hysterectomy with sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer: surgical outcomes and cost analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24(6):977–983Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr L, Garry R (2005) Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMJ 330(7506):1478Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Donnez O, Jaboul P, Squifflet J, Donnez J (2008) A series of 3190 laparoscopic hysterectomies for benign disease from 1990 to 2006: evaluation of complications compared with vaginal and abdominal procedures. BJOG 116(4):492–500Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Swenson CW, Kamdar NS, Harris JA, Uppal S, Campbell DA, Morgan DM (2016) Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(5):650Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rosero EB, Kho KA, Joshi GP, Giesecke M, Schaffer JI (2013) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol 122(4):778–786Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stewart CL, Ituarte PHG, Melstrom KA, Warner SG, Melstrom LG, Kai LL et al (2018) Robotic surgery trends in general surgical oncology from the national inpatient sample. Surg Endosc. Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pellegrino A, Gianluca RD, Fachechi G, Corso S, Pirovano C, Trio C, Villa M, Turoli D, Youssef A (2017) Cost analysis of minimally invasive hysterectomy vs open approach performed by a single surgeon in an Italian center. J Robot Surg 11(2):115–121Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Mendivil A, Rossi E, Hanna R (2009) Perioperative outcomes of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign cases with complex pathology. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):585–593Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Silasi DA, Gallo T, Silasi M, Menderes G, Azodi M (2013) Robotic versus abdominal hysterectomy for very large uteri. JSLS 17(3):400–406Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dimick JB, Chen SL, Taheri PA, Henderson WG, Khuri SF, Campbell DA (2004) Hospital costs associated with surgical complications: a report from the private sector national surgical quality improvement program. J Am Coll Surg 199(4):531–537Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nash K, Feinglass J, Zei C, Lu G, Mengesha B, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Lin A (2012) Robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285:435–440Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T, Einarsson JI (2013) A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208(5):368e1–368e7Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Wierda Suttle A, Hunt S (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy, and robotic techniques. Gynecol Onc 111(3):407–411Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lau S, Vaknin Z, Ramam-Kumar A, Halliday D, Frano E, Gotlieb W (2012) Outcomes and cost comparisons after introducing a robotics program for endometrial cancer surgery. Obstet Gynecol 119(4):717–724Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mahdi H, Goodrich S, Lockhart D, DeBernardo R, Moslemi-Kebria M (2014) Predictors of surgical site infection in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease: a multicenter analysis using the national surgical quality improvement program data. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(5):901–909Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    De Lissovoy G, Fraeman K, Hutchins V, Murphy D, Song D, Vaughn B (2009) Surgical site infection: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Control 37(5):387–397Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309(7):689–698Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Albright BB, Witte T, Tofte AN, Chou J, Black JD, Desai VB, Erekson EA (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(1):18–27Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nezhat C, Lavie O, Hsu S, Watson J, Barnett O, Lemyre M (2009) Robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy—a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril 91(2):556–559Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Barnett JC, Judd JP, Wu JM, Scales CD, Myers ER, Havrilesky LJ (2010) Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 116(3):685–693Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lim PC, Crane JT, English EH, Farnam RW, Garza DM, Winter ML, Rozeboom JL (2016) Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons for benign indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 133(3):359–364Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Khan NA, Quan H, Bugar JM, Lemaire JB, Brant R, Ghali WA (2006) Association of postoperative complications with hospital costs and length of stay in a tertiary care center. J Gen Intern Med 21(2):177–180Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schar G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 120(3):604–611Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Aarts JWM, Nieboer TE, Johnson N et al (2015) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zhu XL, Yan PJ, Yao L, Liu R, Wu DW, Du BB et al (2018) Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic- assisted and laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer. Surg Innov 7:1553350618797822Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Barakat EE, Bediwy M, Zimberg S, Nutter B, Nosseir M, Falcone T (2011) Robotic assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 117(2):256–266Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Behera MA, Likes CE III, Judd JP, Barnett JC, Havrilesky LU, Wu JM (2012) Cost analysis of abdominal, laparoscopic, robotic assisted myomectomies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 19(1):52–57Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hanstede MM, Wise LA, Strewart EA, Feldman S (2009) The relation of annual surgeon case volume to clinical outcomes and resource utilization in abdominal hysterectomy. J Repod Med 54(4):193–202Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wallenstein MR, Ananth CV, Kim JH, Burke WM, Hershman DL, Sharyn N, Neugut AI, Lu YS, Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2012) Effect of surgical volume on outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol 119(4):709–716Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tunitsky E, Citil A, Ayaz R, Esin S, Knee A, Harmanli O (2010) Does surgical volume influence short-term outcomes of laparoscopic hysterectomy? Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(1):24.e1–24.e6Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:589–594Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Geller EJ, Lin FC, Matthews CA (2013) Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gyencol 20(1):43–48Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Woelk JL, Casiano ER, Weaver AL, Gostout BS, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB (2013) The learning curve of robotic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 121:87–95Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hung AJ, Oh PJ, Ghodoussipour S, Lane C, Jarc A, Gill IS (2018) Expert versus super experts: differences in automated performance metrics and clinical outcomes for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Minimally Invasive GynecologyThe George Washington University HospitalWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Minimally Invasive GynecologyThe University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations