Safety and feasibility of the three-port robot-assisted hysterectomy across uterine weights


One strategy thought to reduce direct costs associated with robotic surgery is minimizing the number of robotic arms used for a surgery. We aim to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of the three-port robot-assisted hysterectomy across uterine weights. Retrospective cohort study in a tertiary care university hospital of consecutive patients undergoing a three-port robot-assisted hysterectomy for benign indications. All surgeries were performed between 2012 and 2018 by fellowship-trained minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons. Data from 232 patients were collected. Eighty-eight (37.9%) patients had a uterine weight < 250 g, 63 (27.2%) had a uterine weight between 250 and 500 g, 51 (22.0%) had a uterine weight between 500 and 1000 g, and 30 (12.9%) had a uterine weight ≥ 1000 g. Multivariable regression analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between uterine weight groups and time spent in PACU, the total length of hospital stay, or direct cost. When setting the < 250 g as referent, patients with uterine weights between 500 and 1000 g, and more than 1000 g had an operative time that was on average 23.4% and 91.6% longer than patients with uterine weight < 250 g, respectively (p < 0.01). Patients with uterine weights between 500 and 1000 g and more than 1000 g had an EBL that was on average 35% and 156% higher than patients with uterine weight < 250 g, respectively (p < 0.01). Our data support the safety and feasibility of the three-port robot-assisted hysterectomy technique across uterine weights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    Rothstein DH, Raval MV (2018) Operating room efficiency. Semin Pediatr Surg 27(2):79–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Cima RR, Brown MJ, Hebl JR et al (2011) Use of lean and six sigma methodology to improve operating room efficiency in a high-volume tertiary-care academic medical center. J Am Coll Surg 213(1):83–92 (discussion 93-84)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Einav Y, Gopher D, Kara I et al (2010) Preoperative briefing in the operating room: shared cognition, teamwork, and patient safety. Chest 137(2):443–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Friend TH, Paula A, Klemm J, Rosa M, Levine W (2018) Improving operating room efficiency via reduction and standardization of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery instrumentation. J Med Syst 42(7):116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Committee on Gynecologic P (2017) Committee Opinion No 701: choosing the route of hysterectomy for Benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 129(6):e155–e159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Desai VB, Xu X (2015) An update on inpatient hysterectomy routes in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(5):742–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Health Services Research on Hysterectomy and Alternatives. http://www.ahrq.-gov/research/hysterec.htm. Accessed Feb 2019

  8. 8.

    Advincula AP, Wang K (2009) Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(3):291–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wright KN, Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Shah N, Einarsson JI (2012) Costs and outcomes of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies. JSLS 16(4):519–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Moawad GN, Abi Khalil ED, Tyan P et al (2017) Comparison of cost and operative outcomes of robotic hysterectomy compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy across different uterine weights. J Robot Surg 11(4):433–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Mantoo S, Rigaud J, Naulet S, Lehur PA, Meurette G (2014) Standardized surgical technique and dedicated operating room environment can reduce the operative time during robotic-assisted surgery for pelvic floor disorders. J Robot Surg 8(1):7–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kim JJ, Choi C, Nam SH, Kim WY (2017) Feasibility of reduced-port robotic surgery for myomectomy with the da Vinci surgical system. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 24(6):926–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Matanes E, Lauterbach R, Boulus S, Amit A, Lowenstein L (2018) Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 231:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Goebel K, Goldberg JM (2014) Women's preference of cosmetic results after gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(1):64–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Sinha R, Bana R, Sanjay M (2019) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for the large uterus. JSLS 23(1):e2018.00068.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Avondstondt AM, Wallenstein M, D'Adamo CR, Ehsanipoor RM (2018) Change in cost after 5 years of experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer. J Robot Surg 12(1):93–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work received no funding.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaby N. Moawad.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Moawad is a speaker for Intuitive Surgical. All other authors have nothing to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

Prior presentation


Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tyan, P., Klebanoff, J.S., Frangieh, M. et al. Safety and feasibility of the three-port robot-assisted hysterectomy across uterine weights. J Robotic Surg (2020).

Download citation


  • Minimally invasive surgery
  • Port reduction
  • Robot-assisted hysterectomy
  • Surgical technique