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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Rothstein DH, Raval MV (2018) Operating room efficiency. Semin Pediatr Surg 27(2):79–85
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)
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
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
Committee on Gynecologic P (2017) Committee Opinion No 701: choosing the route of hysterectomy for Benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 129(6):e155–e159
Desai VB, Xu X (2015) An update on inpatient hysterectomy routes in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(5):742–743
Health Services Research on Hysterectomy and Alternatives. http://www.ahrq.-gov/research/hysterec.htm. Accessed Feb 2019
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
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
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
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
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
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
Goebel K, Goldberg JM (2014) Women's preference of cosmetic results after gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(1):64–67
Sinha R, Bana R, Sanjay M (2019) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for the large uterus. JSLS 23(1):e2018.00068. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2018.00068
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
This work received no funding.
Conflict of interest
Dr. Moawad is a speaker for Intuitive Surgical. All other authors have nothing to disclose.
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01101-7
- Minimally invasive surgery
- Port reduction
- Robot-assisted hysterectomy
- Surgical technique