Comparison of robotic surgery and laparoscopy to perform total hysterectomy with pelvic adhesions or large uterus

Background: Currently, benefits of robotic surgery in patients with benign gynecological conditions remain unclear. In this study, we compared the surgical outcome of robotic and laparoscopic total hysterectomies and evaluated the feasibility of robotic surgery in cases with pelvic adhesions or large uterus. Materials and Methods: A total of 216 patients receiving total hysterectomy via robotic or laparoscopic approach were included in this study. Of all 216 patients, 88 underwent robotic total hysterectomy and 128 underwent laparoscopic total hysterectomy. All cases were grouped by surgical type, adhesion score, and uterine weight to evaluate the interaction or individual effect to the surgical outcomes. The perioperative parameters, including operation time, blood loss, postoperative pain score, time to full diet resumption, length of hospital stay, conversion rate, and surgery-related complications were compared between the groups. Results: Operation time and blood loss were affected by both surgical type and adhesion score. For cases with severe adhesions (adhesion score greater than 4), robotic surgery was associated with a shortened operation time (113.9 ± 38.4 min versus 164.3 ± 81.4 min, P = 0.007) and reduced blood loss (187.5 ± 148.7 mL versus 385.7 ± 482.6, P=0.044) compared with laparoscopy. Moreover, robotic group showed a lower postoperative pain score than laparoscopic group, as the effect was found to be independent of adhesion score or uterine weight. The grade-II complication rate was also found to be lower in the robotic group. Conclusions: Comparing to laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery is a feasible and potential alternative for performing total hysterectomy with severe adhesions.

[1]  Sung-Ho Park,et al.  When do we need to perform laparotomy for benign uterine disease? Factors involved with conversion in vaginal hysterectomy , 2012, The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research.

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

[3]  Peng-Hui Wang,et al.  Efficacy of combined laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion and myomectomy via minilaparotomy in the treatment of recurrent uterine myomas. , 2007, Fertility and sterility.

[4]  Masoud Azodi,et al.  Comparison between 155 cases of robotic vs. 150 cases of open surgical staging for endometrial cancer. , 2012, Gynecologic oncology.

[5]  R. El-Galley,et al.  Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: identification of patients who benefit from the robotic approach. , 2013, Journal of endourology.

[6]  V. Zanagnolo,et al.  Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes and recurrence with laparoscopy, vaginal/laparoscopy and laparotomy. , 2011, European journal of gynaecological oncology.

[7]  R. Barakat,et al.  Postoperative Pain Medication Requirements in Patients Undergoing Computer-Assisted (“Robotic”) and Standard Laparoscopic Procedures for Newly Diagnosed Endometrial Cancer , 2013, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[8]  Jason D. Wright,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. , 2012, Gynecologic oncology.

[9]  Robotically Assisted vs Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Among Women With Benign Gynecologic Disease , 2013 .

[10]  H. Kim,et al.  Comparison of clinical effects between total vaginal hysterectomy and total laparoscopic hysterectomy on large uteruses over 300 grams , 2010, The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research.

[11]  E. Buescher,et al.  Vaginal cuff dehiscence in a series of 12,398 hysterectomies: effect of different types of colpotomy and vaginal closure. , 2013, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  A. Advincula,et al.  The role of robotic surgery in gynecology , 2007, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[13]  H. Ellis The causes and prevention of intestinal adhesions , 1982, The British journal of surgery.

[14]  J. Magrina,et al.  Analysis of secondary cytoreduction for recurrent ovarian cancer by robotics, laparoscopy and laparotomy. , 2013, Gynecologic oncology.

[15]  A. Weaver,et al.  The Learning Curve of Robotic Hysterectomy , 2013, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  G. diZerega Contemporary adhesion prevention. , 1994, Fertility and sterility.

[17]  Ching-Hui Chen,et al.  Comparing Robotic Surgery With Conventional Laparoscopy and Laparotomy for Cervical Cancer Management , 2014, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[18]  R. Hawthorn,et al.  The impact of adhesions on hospital readmissions over ten years after 8849 open gynaecological operations: an assessment from the Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research Study , 2000, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[19]  V. Abeler,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: comparison with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy; one surgeon's experience at the Norwegian Radium Hospital. , 2011, Gynecologic oncology.

[20]  J. Magrina,et al.  Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. , 2012, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[21]  Young Tae Kim,et al.  Robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer , 2012, Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology.

[22]  W. Winer,et al.  Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy for the large uterus. , 2002, The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.

[23]  P. Ramirez,et al.  Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology , 2011, Current opinion in oncology.

[24]  N. Demartines,et al.  Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey , 2004, Annals of Surgery.

[25]  F. Nezhat,et al.  Postoperative Pain and Recovery After Conventional Laparoscopy Compared With Robotically Assisted Laparoscopy , 2013, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[26]  M. Munsell,et al.  Analgesic and Antiemetic Requirements After Minimally Invasive Surgery for Early Cervical Cancer: A Comparison Between Laparoscopy and Robotic Surgery , 2013, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[27]  C. Dervenis,et al.  Peritoneal Adhesions: Etiology, Pathophysiology, and Clinical Significance , 2001, Digestive Surgery.

[28]  E. Bieber,et al.  Improvement of interobserver reproducibility of adhesion scoring systems. Adhesion Scoring Group. , 1994, Fertility and sterility.

[29]  R. Robinson,et al.  Robotic surgery applications in the management of gynecologic malignancies , 2012, Journal of surgical oncology.