Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE To compare clinical and economic outcomes (hospital costs) in women undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with and without robotic assistance in inpatient and outpatient settings. METHODS Using the Premier hospital database, we identified women >18 years of age with a record of minimally invasive hysterectomy performed in 2007 to 2008. Univariable and multivariable analyses examined the association between robot-assisted hysterectomy and adverse events, hospital costs, surgery time, and length of stay. RESULTS Of 36,188 patient records analyzed from 358 hospitals, 95% (n = 34,527) of laparoscopic hysterectomies were performed without robotic assistance. Inpatient and outpatient settings did not differ substantively in frequency of adverse events. For cardiac, neurologic, wound, and vascular complications, frequencies were <1% for robot and non-robot procedures. In inpatient and outpatient settings alike, use of robotic assistance was consistently associated with statistically significant, higher per-patient average hospital costs. Inpatient procedures with and without robotic assistance cost $9640 (95% confidence interval [CI] = $9621, $9659) versus $6973 (95% CI = $6959, $6987), respectively. Outpatient procedures with and without robotic assistance cost $7920 (95% CI = $7898, $7942) versus $5949 (95% CI = $5932, $5966), respectively. Inpatient surgery times were significantly longer for robot-assisted procedures, 3.22 hours (95% CI = 3.21, 3.23) compared with non-robot procedures at 2.82 hours (95% CI = 2.81, 2.83). Similarly, outpatient surgery times with robot averaged 2.99 hours (95% CI = 2.98, 3.00) versus 2.46 hours (2.45, 2.47) for non-robot procedures. CONCLUSION Our findings reveal little clinical differences in perioperative and postoperative events. This, coupled with the increased per-case hospital cost of the robot, suggests that further investigation is warranted when considering this technology for routine laparoscopic hysterectomies.

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

[2]  P. Gehrig,et al.  A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. , 2008, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

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

[4]  Keith H. Nelson,et al.  Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Utilizing a Robotic Surgical System , 2005, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[5]  C. Nezhat,et al.  Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopy in Gynecological Surgery , 2006, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[6]  Usha Seshadri-Kreaden,et al.  What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? , 2008, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[7]  M. Rettenmaier,et al.  Pilot study assessing robotic laparoscopic hysterectomy and patient outcomes. , 2006, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[8]  A. Weaver,et al.  Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. , 2008, Gynecologic oncology.

[9]  Arnold P Advincula,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. , 2007, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[10]  Tommaso Falcone,et al.  Tubal Anastomosis by Robotic Compared With Outpatient Minilaparotomy , 2007, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  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.

[12]  A. Advincula,et al.  Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. , 2009, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[13]  Steven D. Wexner,et al.  The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference , 2009, Surgical Endoscopy.

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