4.1 Article

Comparison of Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy to Other Minimally Invasive Approaches

出版社

SOC LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS
DOI: 10.4293/108680812X13462882736899

关键词

Robotic surgery; Hysterectomy; Robotic hysterectomy; Laparoscopic; Laparoscopic hysterectomy; Vaginal hysterectomy; Minimally invasive surgical procedures

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy (RH) to other minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH) types, including total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH), and vaginal hysterectomy (VH). Methods: Retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent RH or MIH for benign indications between January 2007 and May 2010 at 2 Henry Ford Health System teaching hospitals. Age, race, body mass index (BMI), procedure duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), peri-operative hemoglobin change, uterine weight, length of hospital stay (LOS), and complications were collected from electronic medical records and were compared between RH and MIH groups. Results: Included in the analysis were 135 RH and 162 MIH cases (n = 34 VH, n = 82 LAVH, n = 46 TLH). There were no differences in age, race, or BMI between groups, but RH patients had significantly larger uteri (P = .007; RH, 13.5%>500g; MIH 4.0%>500g). MIH patients had significantly greater EBL (P < .001) and drop in hemoglobin (P = .02) than RH patients with a 150 ml difference in median EBL (200 mL versus 50 mL) between groups. RH had longer procedure durations than MIH (P = .0002) overall, but not compared to the TLH subgroup. RH patients had a shorter LOS than MIH patients had (P = .02) who had a longer LOS for LAVH patients. Although readmission and major complication rates were similar in both groups, minor adverse events occurred more frequently in the MIH group (21.6%) than the RH group (8.9%) (P = .003). Conclusion: RH has comparable surgical outcomes, and possibly decreased blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer minor complications than other methods of MIH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据