Robotic Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: What Have We Learned from a Decade?
Adult
Body Mass Index
Female
Humans
Hysterectomy
/ adverse effects
Laparoscopy
/ adverse effects
Laparotomy
/ adverse effects
Middle Aged
Obesity
/ complications
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Procedures and Techniques Utilization
Retrospective Studies
Robotic Surgical Procedures
/ adverse effects
Uterine Diseases
/ complications
Benign
Hysterectomy
Laparoscopy
Minimally invasive
Robotic-assisted
Journal
JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
ISSN: 1938-3797
Titre abrégé: JSLS
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884618
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
21
4
2021
pubmed:
22
4
2021
medline:
6
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Robotic surgery data need a setback on many years of practice with high-volume surgeons to evaluate its real value. Our main objective was to study the impact of a decade of robotic surgery on minimally-invasive hysterectomies for benign indications. Our secondary objectives were to evaluate our results for high-volume surgeons and complex cases. In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed medical records at Foch Hospital, from 2010 to 2019, to evaluate the outcomes of robotic hysterectomies for benign disease. We compared the trends of benign hysterectomies done by laparoscopy and laparotomy during this period. We analyzed the proficiency group (≥ 75 cases per surgeon) and complex cases including obese patients and large uteri (>250 g). 495 hysterectomies were performed by robotic, 275 by laparotomy, and 130 by laparoscopy. The laparotomy approach decreased from 62% to 29%, whereas the robotic approach increased from 26% to 61%. The operating room (OR) time decreased in the proficiency group (157.3 ± 43.32 versus 178.6 ± 48.05, A shift was observed between the laparotomy and robotic approaches. High-volume surgeons were more efficient and showed a decrease in OR time after 75 cases despite an increase in uterine weight.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Robotic surgery data need a setback on many years of practice with high-volume surgeons to evaluate its real value. Our main objective was to study the impact of a decade of robotic surgery on minimally-invasive hysterectomies for benign indications. Our secondary objectives were to evaluate our results for high-volume surgeons and complex cases.
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed medical records at Foch Hospital, from 2010 to 2019, to evaluate the outcomes of robotic hysterectomies for benign disease. We compared the trends of benign hysterectomies done by laparoscopy and laparotomy during this period. We analyzed the proficiency group (≥ 75 cases per surgeon) and complex cases including obese patients and large uteri (>250 g).
RESULTS
RESULTS
495 hysterectomies were performed by robotic, 275 by laparotomy, and 130 by laparoscopy. The laparotomy approach decreased from 62% to 29%, whereas the robotic approach increased from 26% to 61%. The operating room (OR) time decreased in the proficiency group (157.3 ± 43.32 versus 178.6 ± 48.05,
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A shift was observed between the laparotomy and robotic approaches. High-volume surgeons were more efficient and showed a decrease in OR time after 75 cases despite an increase in uterine weight.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33879990
doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2020.00091
pii: JSLS.2020.00091
pmc: PMC8035818
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2021 by SLS, Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest: none.
Références
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jan;121(1):87-95
pubmed: 23262932
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Nov;114(5):1156-1158
pubmed: 20168127
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar;115(3):535-542
pubmed: 20177284
Front Surg. 2016 Nov 02;3:58
pubmed: 27853733
S D Med. 2009 Mar;62(3):91, 93-5
pubmed: 19480272
JSLS. 2013 Jul-Sep;17(3):418-22
pubmed: 24018079
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 30;12(11):e0188812
pubmed: 29190666
BJOG. 2019 May;126(6):795-802
pubmed: 30461181
Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96
pubmed: 19638912
J Robot Surg. 2019 Oct;13(5):635-642
pubmed: 30919259
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Sep - Oct;27(6):1344-1353.e3
pubmed: 31740432
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Jun;293(6):1169-83
pubmed: 26861466
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Jun;19(3):451-65
pubmed: 15985258
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Jan;289(1):101-5
pubmed: 23839534
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;120(3):604-11
pubmed: 22914470
Int J Surg. 2016 Nov;35:51-57
pubmed: 27633451
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008 Sep-Oct;15(5):589-94
pubmed: 18722971
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 May;117(5):1142-1149
pubmed: 21508754
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 May;208(5):368.e1-7
pubmed: 23395927
J Robot Surg. 2011 Dec;5(4):267-72
pubmed: 27628116
Perm J. 2020;24:
pubmed: 31905335
JSLS. 2019 Jan-Mar;23(1):
pubmed: 30675091
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jan;23(1):18-27
pubmed: 26272688
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Jan;136(1):64-69
pubmed: 28099699
J Robot Surg. 2017 Dec;11(4):433-439
pubmed: 28144809
Int J Med Robot. 2008 Jun;4(2):114-20
pubmed: 18382994
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 May-Jun;18(3):328-32
pubmed: 21411379
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Feb;136(2):128-137
pubmed: 28099736
Minim Invasive Surg. 2013;2013:429105
pubmed: 23936645
JAMA. 2013 Feb 20;309(7):689-98
pubmed: 23423414
Minim Invasive Surg. 2018 Sep 17;2018:7362489
pubmed: 30310699
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;(8):CD003677
pubmed: 26264829
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Nov;114(5):1041-1048
pubmed: 20168105
S D Med. 2011 Jun;64(6):197-9, 201, 203 passim
pubmed: 21710804
Fertil Steril. 2014 Mar;101(3):621-6
pubmed: 24559616
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:1827913
pubmed: 28373977
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov;215(5):650.e1-650.e8
pubmed: 27343568