Robot-assisted hysterectomy vs total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes: Comparison of robotic hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy

The learning curve of introduced robotic-assisted hysterectomy versus skilled laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic diseases

AIM

This study aimed to compare introduced robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RAH) and skilled total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) for the treatment of benign gynecological diseases.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RAH or TLH by two surgeons at the Tottori University Hospital between January 2018 and May 2022 were included in this retrospective study. Inclusion criteria were patients with 100-300 g of uterine weight. The exclusion criteria were patients with stage IV endometriosis. Mean operative time and learning curve were compared among the first-half RAH, second-half RAH, and TLH groups.

RESULTS

There were 40 eligible cases (first-half RAH: 20 cases, second-half RAH: 20 cases) in the RAH group and 44 cases in the TLH group. The total operative time (TOT) of the second half of RAH was significantly shorter than that of the first half of RAH (p = 0.021) and was comparable to that of the TLH group. The operative time (OT) of the second half of RAH was shorter than that of TLH (p = 0.023). The preparation time of TLH was shorter than that of the RAH group (p < 0.01). The learning curve of the TOT in RAH crossed that of TLH on the 31st case of RAH. In contrast, both curves of the OT crossed on the 11th case of RAH.

CONCLUSION

The TOT of the introduced RAH was equivalent to that of skilled TLH in approximately 30 cases since the first RAH. Furthermore, the OT of RAH was comparable to that of TLH in approximately 10 cases of surgery since the first RAH.

Outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for benign gynaecological disease: a systematic review

Benign gynaecological diseases are usually treated with minimally invasive approaches. Robotic surgery seems an alternative to laparoscopic surgery. No definitive conclusions have yet been made regarding comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for benign diseases. In this scenario, we performed a systematic review in order to assess the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopy versus robotic surgery and conclude whether laparoscopy should be replaced by robotic surgery for the treatment of benign gynaecological conditions, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Statement. We included 64 studies: no significant difference was observed regarding overall complication rate; no significant benefit of robotic approach was demonstrated regarding length of hospital stay and conversion to laparotomy; furthermore, robotic surgery is more easily used by non-experienced surgeons, while it is more expensive and characterised by longer operative time. In conclusion, current evidence indicates neither statistically significant nor clinically meaningful differences in surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for benign gynaecological diseases. Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Benign gynaecological diseases are usually treated with minimally invasive approaches. Nevertheless, no definitive conclusions have yet been made regarding comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for benign diseases.What do the results of this study add? No significant difference was observed regarding overall complication rate; no significant benefit of robotic approach was demonstrated regarding length of hospital stay and conversion to laparotomy; furthermore, robotic surgery is more easily used by non-experienced surgeon, while it is more expensive and characterised by longer operative time.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Robotic surgery should not replace laparoscopy for the treatment of benign gynaecological conditions; in addition, gynaecologic surgeon should offer robotic surgery for benign diseases only after a proper counselling and a balanced decision-making process involving the patient.

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms “laparoscopic” and “robotic”. Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons’ expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12–2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by “expert surgeons” showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03–2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20–5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

Superiority of robotic surgery for cervical cancer in comparison with traditional approaches: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To review the safety and effectiveness of da Vinci robotic surgery for cervical cancer in comparison with the traditional open surgery and conventional laparoscopic operation.

METHODS

Based on Medline, the Cochrane library, Embase, and the Journal of Robotic Surgery prior to December 30st, 2015, we searched for controlled trials and observational studies. A systematic review with meta-analyses was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy between the da Vinci robotic surgery, open surgery, and laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer. Data were pooled using the random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with the open surgery, the robotic surgery for cervical cancer would be advantageous in terms of the length of hospital stay, incidence of complications, volume of blood loss and blood transfusion. The operative time of robotic surgery was longer than that of the open surgery, but the prediction intervals indicated that they could be shorter in future studies. Meanwhile, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the robotic surgery could offer more benefits in terms of the length of hospital stay, while no difference was found in terms of the incidence of complications and the volume of blood loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to open surgery, the robotic surgery would be advantageous for cervical cancer patients in terms of the length of hospital stay, the incidence of complications, blood loss and blood transfusion. Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the robotic surgery would result in longer OT, more BL and shorter LOS. The study quality was poor.

The learning curves of robotic and three-dimensional laparoscopic surgery in cervical cancer

BACKGROUND: The 3D laparoscopy systems and robotic systems have been introduced into clinical practice for a few years. But the comparison of robotic and 3D laparoscopic gynecologic surgery is still needed.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the learning curves of robotic and 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer.

STUDY DESIGN: The operational duration, blood loss, peritoneal drainage of first 24 hours after operation, total hospitalization days, hospitalization days after operation, lymph nodes collected, learning curves and cost of robotic and 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer performed by one experienced surgeon were studied.

RESULTS: There was one surgeon who performed 37 cases of robotic and 24 cases of 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, and the turning point of learning curves was case 13^th and case 10^th. The differences of duration of operation, blood loss, peritoneal drainage of first 24 hours after operation, total hospitalization days, hospitalization days after operation, lymph nodes collected and perioperative complications were not statistically significant. But the cost of each robotic operation was higher than 3D operation.

CONCLUSIONS: The turning point of the learning curve of 3D laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy is earlier than that of robotic sugery in patients with cervical cancer, and there is no obvious benefit from robotic surgery than 3D surgery in the terms of short-term medical index and hospitalization cost.

The clinical experience of robot-assisted surgery in gynecologic cancer

The comparison of robotic and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in gynecologic cancer still needs to be studied. In all, 98 consecutive cases of patients with gynecologic cancer undergoing robot-assisted hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy, and another 98 consecutive cases of conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy during the same period in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University were included. The duration of the operation, blood loss, drainage during the first 24 h after the operation, total hospital stay, hospital stay after the operation, lymph nodes collected, perioperative complications, and the cost of each operation for both procedures were recorded. The duration of the operation was longer, and the cost of each operation was almost seven times higher in the robot group than that in the conventional laparoscopy group. But the differences with regard to blood loss, drainage during the first 24 h after the operation, total hospital stay, hospital stay after operation, the lymph nodes collected, and the rate of perioperative complications were not statistically significant. Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in gynecologic cancer is as feasible as conventional laparoscopic surgery. We recommend further studies about the cost and effect of RAS in gynecologic cancer.

Case-Mix Variables and Predictors for Outcomes of Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review

The assessment of surgical quality is complex, and an adequate case-mix correction is missing in currently applied quality indicators. The purpose of this study is to give an overview of all studies mentioning statistically significant associations between patient characteristics and surgical outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH). Additionally, we identified a set of potential case-mix characteristics for LH. This systematic review was conducted according to the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. We searched PubMed and EMBASE from January 1, 2000 to August 1, 2015. All articles describing statistically significant associations between patient characteristics and adverse outcomes of LH for benign indications were included. Primary outcomes were blood loss, operative time, conversion, and complications. The methodologic quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The included articles were summed per predictor and surgical outcome. Three sets of case-mix characteristics were determined, stratified by different levels of evidence. Eighty-five of 1549 identified studies were considered eligible. Uterine weight and body mass index (BMI) were the most mentioned predictors (described, respectively, 83 and 45 times) in high quality studies. For longer operative time and higher blood loss, uterine weight ≥ 250 to 300 g and ≥500 g and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) dominated as predictors. Previous operations, adhesions, and higher age were also considered as predictors for longer operative time. For complications and conversions, the patient characteristics varied widely, and uterine weight, BMI, previous operations, adhesions, and age predominated. Studies of high methodologic quality indicated uterine weight and BMI as relevant case-mix characteristics for all surgical outcomes. For future development of quality indicators of LH and to compare surgical outcomes adequately, a case-mix correction is suggested for at least uterine weight and BMI. A potential case-mix correction for adhesions and previous operations can be considered. For both surgeons and patients it is valuable to be aware of potential factors predicting adverse outcomes and to anticipate this. Finally, to benchmark clinical outcomes at an international level, it is of the utmost importance to introduce uniform outcome definitions.

A systematic review and cost analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy in malignant and benign conditions

In order to assess the effectiveness and costs of robot-assisted hysterectomy compared with conventional techniques we reviewed the literature separately for benign and malignant conditions, and conducted a cost analysis for different techniques of hysterectomy from a hospital economic database. Unlimited systematic literature search of Medline, Cochrane and CRD databases produced only two randomized trials, both for benign conditions. For the outcome assessment, data from two HTA reports, one systematic review, and 16 original articles were extracted and analyzed. Furthermore, one cost modelling and 13 original cost studies were analyzed. In malignant conditions, less blood loss, fewer complications and a shorter hospital stay were considered as the main advantages of robot-assisted surgery, like any mini-invasive technique when compared to open surgery. There were no significant differences between the techniques regarding oncological outcomes. When compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy, the main benefit of robot-assistance was a shorter learning curve associated with fewer conversions but the length of robotic operation was often longer. In benign conditions, no clinically significant differences were reported and vaginal hysterectomy was considered the optimal choice when feasible. According to Finnish data, the costs of robot-assisted hysterectomies were 1.5-3 times higher than the costs of conventional techniques. In benign conditions the difference in cost was highest. Because of expensive disposable supplies, unit costs were high regardless of the annual number of robotic operations. Hence, in the current distribution of cost pattern, economical effectiveness cannot be markedly improved by increasing the volume of robotic surgery.