Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease.

IMPORTANCE Although robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign gynecologic conditions has been reported, little is known about the incorporation of the procedure into practice, its complication profile, or its costs compared with other routes of hysterectomy. OBJECTIVES To analyze the uptake of robotically assisted hysterectomy, to determine the association between use of robotic surgery and rates of abdominal and laparoscopic hysterectomy, and to compare the in-house complications of robotically assisted hysterectomy vs abdominal and laparoscopic procedures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Cohort study of 264,758 women who underwent hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disorders at 441 hospitals across the United States from 2007 to 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Uptake of and factors associated with utilization of robotically assisted hysterectomy. Complications, transfusion, reoperation, length of stay, death, and cost for women who underwent robotic hysterectomy compared with both abdominal and laparoscopic procedures were analyzed. RESULTS Use of robotically assisted hysterectomy increased from 0.5% in 2007 to 9.5% of all hysterectomies in 2010. During the same time period, laparoscopic hysterectomy rates increased from 24.3% to 30.5%. Three years after the first robotic procedure at hospitals where robotically assisted hysterectomy was performed, robotically assisted hysterectomy accounted for 22.4% of all hysterectomies. The rates of abdominal hysterectomy decreased both in hospitals where robotic-assisted hysterectomy was performed as well as in those where it was not performed. In a propensity score-matched analysis, the overall complication rates were similar for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic hysterectomy (5.5% vs 5.3%; relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86-1.24). Although patients who underwent a robotic-assisted hysterectomy were less likely to have a length of stay longer than 2 days (19.6% vs 24.9%; RR, 0.78, 95% CI, 0.67-0.92), transfusion requirements (1.4% vs 1.8%; RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.16) and the rate of discharge to a nursing facility (0.2% vs 0.3%; RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.35-1.76) were similar. Total costs associated with robotically assisted hysterectomy were $2189 (95% CI, $2030-$2349) more per case than for laparoscopic hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Between 2007 and 2010, the use of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disorders increased substantially. Robotically assisted and laparoscopic hysterectomy had similar morbidity profiles, but the use of robotic technology resulted in substantially more costs.

[1]  T. N. Payne,et al.  Robotically Assisted Hysterectomy in Patients With Large Uteri: Outcomes in Five Community Practices , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  S. Maeso,et al.  Meta‐analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery , 2010, The British journal of surgery.

[3]  D. Sarlos,et al.  Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies , 2011, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[4]  A. Kumar.  Antibiotic Therapy and Treatment Failure in Patients Hospitalized for Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease , 2011 .

[5]  E. Soto,et al.  Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus da Vinci robotic hysterectomy: is using the robot beneficial? , 2011, Journal of Gynecologic Oncology.

[6]  B. Mol,et al.  Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease (Review) , 2009 .

[7]  R. D'Agostino.  Adjustment Methods: Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in the Comparison of a Treatment to a Non‐Randomized Control Group , 2005 .

[8]  M. Muto,et al.  The Feasibility of Societal Cost Equivalence between Robotic Hysterectomy and Alternate Hysterectomy Methods for Endometrial Cancer , 2011, Obstetrics and gynecology international.

[9]  Jason D. Wright,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  A. Shashoua,et al.  Robotic-Assisted Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Versus Conventional Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy , 2009, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[11]  G. Schaer,et al.  Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. , 2010, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[12]  G. Barbash,et al.  New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  Jennifer M Wu,et al.  Hysterectomy Rates in the United States, 2003 , 2007, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  S. Maeso,et al.  Efficacy of the Da Vinci Surgical System in Abdominal Surgery Compared With That of Laparoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2010, Annals of surgery.

[15]  Jon I Einarsson.  Increasing minimally invasive hysterectomy: effect on cost and complications. , 2012, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  P. Gehrig,et al.  Perioperative Outcomes of Robotically Assisted Hysterectomy for Benign Cases With Complex Pathology , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  J. Persson,et al.  Robot‐assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy in obese and morbidly obese women: surgical technique and comparison with open surgery , 2011, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[18]  H. Hubert,et al.  Comparison of minimally invasive surgical approaches for hysterectomy at a community hospital: robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy , 2010, Journal of robotic surgery.

[19]  S. Lipsitz,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. , 2009, JAMA.

[20]  M. Kollef,et al.  Economic Impact of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in a Large Matched Cohort , 2012, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[21]  P. Lindenauer,et al.  Perioperative beta-blocker therapy and mortality after major noncardiac surgery. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  G. H. Moore,et al.  Consumer Price Index , 1993 .

[23]  M. Henne.  Robotically assisted hysterectomy in patients with large uteri: outcomes in five community practices. , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[24]  E. Franco,et al.  Outcomes and Cost Comparisons After Introducing a Robotics Program for Endometrial Cancer Surgery , 2012, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[25]  Jennifer M Wu,et al.  Cost Comparison Among Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[26]  P. Lim,et al.  A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. , 2011, Gynecologic oncology.

[27]  Huan Song,et al.  Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[28]  T. N. Payne,et al.  A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. , 2008, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[29]  D. Skiest,et al.  Antibiotic therapy and treatment failure in patients hospitalized for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. , 2010, JAMA.

[30]  O. Gemer,et al.  Laparoscopic Hysterectomy with and without a Robot: Stanford Experience , 2009, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[31]  Justin B Dimick,et al.  Introduction to propensity scores: A case study on the comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. , 2010, Archives of surgery.

[32]  Elliott S Fisher,et al.  Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. , 2007, JAMA.

[33]  Peter J Pronovost,et al.  Robotic Surgery Claims on United States Hospital Websites , 2011, Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality.

[34]  G. Kilic,et al.  Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes of Total Laparoscopic and Robotically Assisted Hysterectomy for Benign Pathology during Introduction of a Robotic Program , 2011, Obstetrics and gynecology international.

[35]  B. Mol,et al.  Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[36]  Jon I. Einarsson,et al.  Increasing Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: Effect on Cost and Complications , 2011, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[37]  ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[38]  C. Steiner,et al.  Hysterectomy Rates in the United States 1990–1997 , 2002, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[39]  P. Lindenauer,et al.  Association of corticosteroid dose and route of administration with risk of treatment failure in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. , 2010, JAMA.

[40]  D. Wagner,et al.  Present-at-admission diagnoses improve mortality risk adjustment and allow more accurate assessment of the relationship between volume of lung cancer operations and mortality risk. , 2005, Surgery.

[41]  P. Austin,et al.  A Modification of the Elixhauser Comorbidity Measures Into a Point System for Hospital Death Using Administrative Data , 2009, Medical care.

[42]  Matt Moore,et al.  Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. , 2010, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[43]  S. Nakagawa,et al.  Nationwide Use of Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Compared With Abdominal and Vaginal Approaches , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.