“Comparison of minimally invasive surgical approaches for hysterectomy at a community hospital: robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy.”
Giep, B. N., H. N. Giep, et al. (2010).
Journal of Robotic Surgery: 1-9.
The study reported here compares outcomes of three approaches to minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications, namely, robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RALH), laparoscopic-assisted vaginal (LAVH) and laparoscopic supracervical (LSH) hysterectomy. The total patient cohort comprised the first 237 patients undergoing robotic surgeries at our hospital between August 2007 and June 2009; the last 100 patients undergoing LAVH by the same surgeons between July 2006 and February 2008 and 165 patients undergoing LAVHs performed by nine surgeons between January 2008 and June 2009; 87 patients undergoing LSH by the same nine surgeons between January 2008 and June 2009. Among the RALH patients were cases of greater complexity: (1) higher prevalence of prior abdominopelvic surgery than that found among LAVH patients; (2) an increased number of procedures for endometriosis and pelvic reconstruction. Uterine weights also were greater in RALH patients [207.4 vs. 149.6 (LAVH; P < 0.001) and 141.1 g (LSH; P = 0.005)]. Despite case complexity, operative time was significantly lower in RALH than in LAVH (89.9 vs. 124.8 min, P < 0.001) and similar to that in LSH (89.6 min). Estimated blood loss was greater in LAVH (167.9 ml) than in RALH (59.0 ml, P < 0.001) or LSH (65.7 ml, P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay was shorter for RALH than for LAVH or LSH. Conversion and complication rates were low and similar across procedures. Multivariable regression indicated that LAVH, obesity, uterine weight ≥250 g and older age predicted significantly longer operative time. The learning curve for RALH demonstrated improved operative time over the case series. Our findings show the benefits of RALH over LAVH. Outcomes in RALH can be as good as or better than those in LSH, suggesting the latter should be the choice primarily for women desiring cervix-sparing surgery. © 2010 The Author(s).
“Comparative Analysis of Outcome Between Open and Robotic Surgical Repair of Recurrent Supra-Trigonal Vesico-Vaginal Fistula.”
Gupta, N. P., S. Mishra, et al. (2010).
Journal of Endourology.
Abstract Introduction: Recurrence of fistula is one of the very common complications of fistula repair. The disease has immense psychosomatic effect on the patients due to continuous leakage of urine. Management of recurrent vesico-vaginal fistula (VVF) repair poses a challenge to surgeons. Materials and Methods: Group I-12 patients with recurrent VVF, having robotic repair from August 2006 to June 2008, were included in the present study. Group II-20 patients matched in all possible parameters with recurrent VVF having open surgical repair in the past were taken as controls. Patients in both the groups were evaluated by assessing relevant clinical details; performing urine routine examination and culture, renal function test, three swab test, ultrasonogram-kidney, ureter, and bladder radiograph, intravenous urogram (to look for upper tract and rule out uretero-vaginal fistula), and urethro-cystoscopy. The details were retrospectively recorded from the case sheets. Results: In group I, 100% were successfully managed as compared with 90% in group II, but it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Mean blood loss was significantly less (p < 0.05) in group I compared with group II (mean 88 vs. 170 mL). The mean hospital stay also was significantly less (p < 0.05) in group I in comparison with group II (mean 3.1 vs. 5.6 days). None of the patients had complications in group I compared with group II, but it was not significant. Conclusion: The present study suggests that robotic VVF repair is a better option for recurrent fistulas in view of its reduced morbidity, without compromising the results.
“[Robotic gynecologic surgery: State of the art. Review of the literature.].”
Zacharopoulou, C., N. Sananes, et al. (2010).
Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction.
Tele-operating robots, that have been developing for 10 years, are a revolution in the field of minimally invasive gynaecology. Indeed, by restoring three-dimensional view and the surgeon’s hand freedom, the robot diminishes the technical difficulties of laparoscopy. The robot brings the surgeon back to open-air movements while preserving the minimally invasive aspect of the procedure and should, therefore, allow an easier transition for laparotomic surgeons to minimally invasive techniques. However, some inconvenients remain: the robot’s size, its time-consuming installation, the lack of force feedback and the cost of robotic surgery. To this day, the robot was used in gynaecology for tubal reversal, myomectomies, hysterectomies, promontofixations and the treatment of gynaecological cancers, but the benefits compared to laparoscopic techniques have not yet been demonstrated and will require large scale prospective studies. These benefits will also have to be weighed up to the cost and organizational constraints.
“Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.”
Barnett, J. C., J. P. Judd, et al. (2010).
Obstetrics and Gynecology 116(3): 685-693.
OBJECTIVE:: To use decision modeling to compare the costs associated with robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer. METHODS:: Three separate models were used, each with sensitivity analysis: 1) a societal perspective model, which included inpatient hospital costs, robotic expenses, and lost wages and caregiver costs; 2) a hospital perspective plus robot costs model, which was identical to the societal perspective model but excluded lost wages and caregiver costs; and 3) a hospital perspective without robot costs model, which was identical to the hospital perspective plus robot costs model except that it excluded initial cost of the robot. RESULTS:: The societal perspective model predicted laparoscopy ($10,128) as the least expensive approach followed by robotic and ($11,476) and open hysterectomy ($12,847). Societal perspective model sensitivity analyses predicted robotic hysterectomy to be least expensive when robotic disposable equipment cost less than $1,046 per case (baseline cost $2,394). In the hospital perspective plus robot costs model, laparoscopy was least expensive ($6,581) followed by open ($7,009) and robotic hysterectomy ($8,770); however, if hospital stay after open surgery was less than 2.9 days, open hysterectomy was least expensive. In the hospital perspective without robot costs model, laparoscopy remained least expensive, but robotic surgery became least expensive if the cost of robotic disposable equipment was reduced to less than $1,496 per case. CONCLUSION:: Laparoscopy is the least expensive surgical approach for the treatment of endometrial cancer. Robotic is less costly than abdominal hysterectomy when the societal costs associated with recovery time are accounted for and is most economically attractive if disposable equipment costs can be minimized. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: III.
“The recent progress in robotic surgery for gynecologic malignant tumors.”
He, L. and Y. Z. Zhang (2010).
Tumor 30(7): 634-636.
Robotic surgery is developed on the basis of endoscopy as a new minimally invasive surgical technique. Because it has many unparalleled advantages over traditional laparoscopy, such as flexible instruments, three-dimensional views and so on, this surgical technology has been widely used in clinic in recent years. In the field of gynecologic oncology, robotic surgery has been used in radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and staging surgery for endometrial and ovarian cancers and pelvic exenteration surgery. The initial outcomes proved that the new technology at least can achieve the same efficacy of traditional laparoscopy and open surgery and alleviate the suffering of patients and shorten the postoperative recovery time concurrently. Robotic surgery is a new effective surgical technique.
“Lymphadenectomy during endometrial cancer staging: Practice patterns among gynecologic oncologists.”
Soliman, P. T., M. Frumovitz, et al. (2010).
Gynecologic Oncology.
OBJECTIVES: Several controversies surround lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer; surgical approach, who to stage, and the anatomic borders of the lymphadenectomy. The purpose of this study was to identify practice patterns among gynecologic oncologists when performing a lymph node evaluation during staging for endometrial cancer. METHODS: A self-administered survey was sent via email to all SGO members on 3 occasions between 2/09 and 4/09. The survey addressed surgical approach, algorithms used to determine staging, and anatomic landmarks defining lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: Four hundred and six members (40%) responded. Eighty-two percent completed fellowship and 14% were fellows. Thirty-four percent finished fellowship in 2000 or later. Eighty-five percent educate fellows/residents in either academic (65%) or private practice settings (20%). For a majority of cases 40% prefer laparotomy, 31% perform robotic surgery, and 29% use laparoscopy. Minimally invasive surgery was associated with university-based practice (p=0.048). Most (53%) never/rarely use frozen section to determine whether or not to perform lymphadenectomy. A majority perform staging on all grade 2 and grade 3 cancers (66% and 90%, respectively). When performing paraaortic lymphadenectomy, 50% of respondents use the IMA as the upper border and 11% take the dissection to the renal vessels. Participants who completed fellowship in 2000 or later were less likely to go to the renal vessels (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Current controversies in surgical staging for endometrial cancer are reflected in the practice patterns among gynecologic oncologists. At this point it is unclear if standardizing surgical practice patterns will improve outcomes for patients with endometrial cancer.
“[Robotic gynecologic surgery: State of the art. Review of the literature.].”
Zacharopoulou, C., N. Sananes, et al. (2010).
Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction.
Tele-operating robots, that have been developing for 10 years, are a revolution in the field of minimally invasive gynaecology. Indeed, by restoring three-dimensional view and the surgeon’s hand freedom, the robot diminishes the technical difficulties of laparoscopy. The robot brings the surgeon back to open-air movements while preserving the minimally invasive aspect of the procedure and should, therefore, allow an easier transition for laparotomic surgeons to minimally invasive techniques. However, some inconvenients remain: the robot’s size, its time-consuming installation, the lack of force feedback and the cost of robotic surgery. To this day, the robot was used in gynaecology for tubal reversal, myomectomies, hysterectomies, promontofixations and the treatment of gynaecological cancers, but the benefits compared to laparoscopic techniques have not yet been demonstrated and will require large scale prospective studies. These benefits will also have to be weighed up to the cost and organizational constraints.