Robotic Total Hysterectomy: Initial Experience in a Tertiary Center

However, the installation of robotic systems,operating and maintenance costs still remain as crucial limitations for thewidespread use of robotic surgery.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯

Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To examine our initial experience with robotic total hysterectomyand evaluate operation related outcomes.Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 16 consecutivepatients who underwent robotic total hysterectomy between December2015 and August 2016 in our clinic.Results: Robotic total hysterectomy was performed for benign indications in13 (81.25%) patients, endometrial cancer in two patients (12.5%),microinvasive cervical cancer in one patient (6.25%).

📊

Key Findings & Data:The mean age ofpatients was 48.7 ± 6.5 years, parity was 2.8 ± 1.7, body mass index was 28.2± 4.6 kg/m2, preoperative hemoglobin levels was 11.6 ± 1.0 g/dl,postoperative hemoglobin levels 10.3 ± 1.0 g/dl, operation time was 162.2 ±39.4 minutes, docking time was 7.3 ± 3.3 minutes, console time was 147 ±37.0 minutes, uterine weight was 178.8 ± 98.5 g and duration of hospital staywas 3.6 ± 1.8 days.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:However, the installation of robotic systems,operating and maintenance costs still remain as crucial limitations for thewidespread use of robotic surgery.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:2016 Verileri

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To examine our initial experience with robotic total hysterectomyand evaluate operation related outcomes.Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 16 consecutivepatients who underwent robotic total hysterectomy between December2015 and August 2016 in our clinic.Results: Robotic total hysterectomy was performed for benign indications in13 (81.25%) patients, endometrial cancer in two patients (12.5%),microinvasive cervical cancer in one patient (6.25%). The mean age ofpatients was 48.7 ± 6.5 years, parity was 2.8 ± 1.7, body mass index was 28.2± 4.6 kg/m2, preoperative hemoglobin levels was 11.6 ± 1.0 g/dl,postoperative hemoglobin levels 10.3 ± 1.0 g/dl, operation time was 162.2 ±39.4 minutes, docking time was 7.3 ± 3.3 minutes, console time was 147 ±37.0 minutes, uterine weight was 178.8 ± 98.5 g and duration of hospital staywas 3.6 ± 1.8 days. Blood transfusion was administered to three patients inthe postoperative period. One patient was converted to laparotomy becauseof poor visualization of pelvic structures by a large uterus. No intraoperativecomplication was encountered. Postoperative complications were limited toone patient with asthma who had fever on the first day following surgery.Conclusion: The results of robotic total hysterectomy is satisfactory for bothpatient and surgeon. Following the completion of the learning curve, robotictotal hysterectomy could be an important alternative method forlaparoscopic hysterectomy. However, the installation of robotic systems,operating and maintenance costs still remain as crucial limitations for thewidespread use of robotic surgery.

Özet

Amaç: Robotik total histerektomi ile ilk deneyimimizi incelemek ve operasyonla ilişkili sonuçları değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kliniğimizde Aralık 2015-Ağustos 2016 tarihleri arasında robotik total histerektomi yapılan 16 ardışık hastayı retrospektif olarak inceledik. Bulgular: On üç (% 81.25) hastaya benign nedenlerle, 2 (% 12.5) hastaya endometrium kanseri ve 1 (% 6.25) hastaya da mikroinvaziv serviks kanseri nedeniyle robotik total histerektomi yapıldı. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 48.75 ± 6.5, paritesi 2.8 ± 1.7, vücut kitle indeksi 28.2 ± 4.6, preoperatif hemoglobin 11.6 ± 1.0 g/dl, postoperatif hemoglobin 10.3 ± 1.0 g/dl, operasyon süresi 162.2 ± 39.4 dakika, docking süresi 7.3 ± 3.3 dakika, konsol süresi 147 ± 37.0 dakika, uterus ağırlıkları 178.8 ± 98.5 g ve hastanede kalış süresi 3.6 ± 1.8 gün olarak tespit edildi. Üç hastaya postoperative dönemde kan transfüzyonu yapıldı. Myoma uteri nedeniyle opera edilen bir hastada, pelvik yapıların yetersiz vizüalizasyonu nedeniyle laparotomiye geçildi. Hiçbir hastada intraoperative komplikasyon gelişmedi. Postoperatif komplikasyonlar cerrahiyi takiben ilk gün ateş yüksekliğinin görüldüğü astımı olan bir hastayla sınırlıydı. Sonuç: Robotik histerektomi sonuçları hem hasta hem de cerrah için tatminkardır. Öğrenme eğrisinin tamamlanmasını takiben, robotik total histerektomi laparoskopik histerektomi için önemli bir alternative olabilir. Ancak robot sistemlerinin kurulum, işletim ve bakım maliyetlerinin yüksek olması robotic cerrahinin yaygın kullanımı için hala önemli bir kısıtlılıktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİR, A., EKİN, A., MAT, E., GOKCU, M., SOLMAZ, U., BİLER, A. (2022). Robotic Total Hysterectomy: Initial Experience in a Tertiary Center. Gazi Medical Journal, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 2, 93–97. https://ajindex.com/articles/519906

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

Garry R. The future of hysterectomy. BJOG 2005;112:133–9.
Reich H, De Caprio J, Mac Glynn F. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Coll Surg 1989;5:213. Desimone CP, Ueland FR. Gynecologic laparoscopy. SurgClin North Am 2008;88:319–41.
He H, Zeng D, Ou H, Tang Y, Li J, Zhong H. Laparoscopic treatment of endometrial cancer: systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:413–23.
Reynolds RK, Advincula AP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 2006;191:555–60.
Visco AG, Advincula AP. Robotic gynecologic surgery. ObstetGynecol 2008;112:1369–84.
Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. GynecolOncol 2008;109:86–91.
Wattiez A, Cohen SB, Selvaggi L. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Cur OpinObstetGynecol 2002;14:417-22.
Garry R, Fountain J, Mason S,Hawe J, Napp V, Abbott J, et al. The eVALuate study: two paralel randomized trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy. BMJ 2004;328:1229-36.
Twijnstra AR, Blikkendaal MD, Kolkman W, Smeets MJ, Rhemrev JP, Jansen FW. Implementation of laparoscopic hysterecomy: maintenance of skills after a mentorship program. GynecolObstet Invest 2010;70:173-8.
Terzi H, Biler A, Demirtas O, Guler OT, Peker N, Kale A. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: Analysis of the surgical learning curve in benign conditions. Int J Surg 2016;35:51-7.
Lenihan JP, Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15:589–94.
Pitter MC, Anderson P, Blissett A, Pemberton N. Robotic-assisted gynaecological surgery – establishing training criteria: minimizing operative time and blood loss. Int J Med Robot 2008;4:114–20.
Sendag F, Zeybek B, Akdemir A, Ozgurel B, Oztekin K. Analysis of the learning curve for robotic hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2014;10:275-9.
Luciano AA, Luciano DE, Gabbert J, Seshadri-Kreaden U. The impact of robotics on the mode of benign hysterectomy and clinical outcomes. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2016;12:114-24.
Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, MendivilA,,Rossi E, et al. Perioperative outcomesof robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign cases withcomplex pathology. ObstetGynecol 2009;114:585–93.
Fiorentino RP, Zepeda MA, Goldstein BH, John CR, Rettenmaier MA. Pilot