Minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications—surgical volume matters: a retrospective cohort study comparing complications of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies
Tóm tắt
The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of perioperative complications in robotic-assisted hysterectomies performed by high-volume robotic surgeons compared to conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies performed by all gynecologic surgeons. This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single-center community based hospital and medical center. A total of 332 patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications were included in this study. Half of these patients (n = 166) underwent conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy and the other half underwent a robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. The main outcome measures included composite complication rate, estimated blood loss (EBL), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Median (IQR) EBL was significantly lower for robotic hysterectomy [22.5 (30) mL] compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy [100 (150) mL, p < 0.0001]. LOS was significantly shorter for robotic hysterectomy (1.0 ± 0.2 day) compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy (1.2 ± 0.7 days, p = 0.04). Despite averaging 3.0 (IQR 1.0) concomitant procedures compared to 0 (IQR 1.0) for the conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies, the incidence of any type of complication was lower in the robotic hysterectomy group (2 vs. 6%, p = 0.05). Finally, in a logistic regression model controlling for multiple confounders, robotic-assisted hysterectomy was less likely to result in a perioperative complication compared to traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy [odds ratio (95% CI) = 0.2 (0.1, 0.90), p = 0.04]. In conclusion, robotic-assisted hysterectomy may reduce complications compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy when performed by high volume surgeons, especially in the setting of other concomitant gynecologic surgeries.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aarts JWM, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BJ, Kluivers KB (2015) Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD003677. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5
Matteson, KA, Butts, SF. Committee Opinion No 701: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(6):e155–e159. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002112(PMID: 28538495)
Carbonnel M, Moawad GN, Tarazi MM, Revaux A, Kennel T, Favre-Inhofer A, Ayoubi JM (2021) Robotic hysterectomy for benign indications: what have we learned from a decade? JSLS 25(1):e2020.00091. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2020.00091.PMID:33879990;PMCID:PMC8035818
Swenson CW, Kamdar NS, Harris JA, Uppal S, Campbell DA Jr, Morgan DM (2016) Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(5):650
Settnes A, Topsoee MF, Moeller C, Dueholm M, Kopp TI, Norrbom C, Rasmussen SC, Froeslev PA, Joergensen A, Dreisler E, Gimbel H (2020) Reduced complications following implementation of laparoscopic hysterectomy: a danish population-based cohort study of minimally invasive benign gynecologic surgery between 2004 and 2018. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 27(6):1344-1353.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.11.005 (Epub 2019 Nov 15 PMID: 31740432)
Giep BN, Giep HN, Hubert HB (2010) Comparison of minimally invasive surgical approaches for hysterectomy at a community hospital: robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. J Robot Surg 4(3):167–175
Roh HF, Nam SH, Kim JM (2018) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 13(1):e0191628
van Weelden WJ, Gordon BBM, Roovers EA, Kraayenbrink AA, Aalders CIM, Hartog F et al (2017) Perioperative surgical outcome of conventional and robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Gynecol Surg 14(1):5
Soto E, Lo Y, Friedman K, Soto C, Nezhat F, Chuang L et al (2011) Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus da Vinci robotic hysterectomy: is using the robot beneficial? J Gynecol Oncol 22(4):253–259
Albright BB, Witte T, Tofte AN, Chou J, Black JD, Desai VB, Erekson EA (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(1):18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.003 (Epub 2015 Aug 10. PMID: 26272688; PMCID: PMC4698211)
Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schär G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 120(3):604–611. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265b61a (PMID: 22914470)
Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T, Einarsson JI (2013) A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208(5):368.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.02.008 (Epub 2013 Feb 8 PMID: 23395927)
Mowat A, Maher C, Ballard E (2016) Surgical outcomes for low-volume vs high-volume surgeons in gynecology surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 215(1):21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.048 (Epub 2016 Mar 3 PMID: 26945605)
Bretschneider CE, Frazzini Padilla P, Das D, Jelovsek JE, Unger CA (2018) The impact of surgeon volume on perioperative adverse events in women undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy for the large uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 219(5):490.e1-490.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.003 (Epub 2018 Sep 14 PMID: 30222939)
Ruiz MP, Chen L, Hou JY, Tergas AI, St Clair CM, Ananth CV, Neugut AI, Hershman DL, Wright JD (2018) Outcomes of hysterectomy performed by very low-volume surgeons. Obstet Gynecol 131(6):981–990. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002597 (PMID: 29742669; PMCID: PMC5970072)
Rosero EB, Kho KA, Joshi GP, Giesecke M, Schaffer JI (2013) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol 122(4):778–786
Vree FE, Cohen SL, Chavan N, Einarsson JI (2014) The impact of surgeon volume on perioperative outcomes in hysterectomy. JSLS 18(2):174–181. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680813X13753907291594 (PMID: 24960479; PMCID: PMC4035626)
Wallenstein MR, Ananth CV, Kim JH, Burke WM, Hershman DL, Lewin SN, Neugut AI, Lu YS, Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2012) Effect of surgical volume on outcomes for laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol 119(4):709–716. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318248f7a8 (PMID: 22433333)
Tunitsky E, Citil A, Ayaz R, Esin S, Knee A, Harmanli O (2010) Does surgical volume influence short-term outcomes of laparoscopic hysterectomy? Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(1):24.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.070 (Epub 2010 Apr 28 PMID: 20430354)
Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309(7):689–698. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.186 (PMID: 23423414)
Rogo-Gupta LJ, Lewin SN, Kim JH, Burke WM, Sun X, Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2010) The effect of surgeon volume on outcomes and resource use for vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 116(6):1341–1347. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fca8c5 (PMID: 21099600)
Hanstede MM, Wise LA, Stewart EA, Feldman S (2009) The relation of annual surgeon case volume to clinical outcomes and resource utilization in abdominal hysterectomy. J Reprod Med 54(4):193–202 (PMID: 19438159)
Gala RB, Margulies R, Steinberg A, Murphy M, Lukban J, Jeppson P, Aschkenazi S, Olivera C, South M, Lowenstein L, Schaffer J, Balk EM, Sung V, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group (2014) Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(3):353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010 (Epub 2013 Dec 1 PMID: 24295923)
El Hachem L, Andikyan V, Mathews S, Friedman K, Poeran J, Shieh K, Geoghegan M, Gretz HF 3rd (2016) Robotic single-site and conventional laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: clinical outcomes and cost analysis of a matched case–control study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(5):760–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.03.005 (Epub 2016 Mar 15 PMID: 26992935)
Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, Brubaker L, Bresee C, Kenton K (2014) Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 123(1):5–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000006 (Erratum in: Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jul;124(1):165. PMID: 24463657; PMCID: PMC4266590)
Wright KN, Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Shah N, Einarsson JI (2012) Costs and outcomes of abdominal, vaginal, laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies. JSLS 16(4):519–524. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680812X13462882736736 (PMID: 23484557; PMCID: PMC3558885)
Healy MA, Mullard AJ, Campbell DA Jr, Dimick JB (2016) Hospital and payer costs associated with surgical complications. JAMA Surg 151(9):823–830. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.0773 (PMID: 27168356)
What is value-based care? NEJM catalyst. 2020. https://catalyst.nejm.org/. Accessed 7 Sept 2021. https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.17.0558
Avondstondt AM, Wallenstein M, D’Adamo CR, Ehsanipoor RM (2018) Change in cost after 5 years of experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy for the treatment of endometrial cancer. J Robot Surg 12(1):93–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0700-6 (Epub 2017 Apr 24 PMID: 28439744)
Perez RE, Schwaitzberg SD (2019) Robotic surgery: finding value in 2019 and beyond. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg 4:51
Jonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Cohen SL, Wright KN, Shah NT, Chavan N, Einarsson JI. Increasing minimally invasive hysterectomy: effect on cost and complications. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(5):1142–1149. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182166055. Erratum in: Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jan;119(1):186. Erratum in: Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jan;119(1):185. PMID: 21508754.