{"paper_id":"9e209ece-fb96-43f4-a49f-bf19e2a77381","body_text":"Abstract\nOperative cost and outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy across different uterine weights. Retrospective cohort study including patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease at an Academic university hospital. One hundred and ninety six hysterectomies were identified (101 robotic versus 95 laparoscopic). Demographic and surgical characteristics were statistically equivalent. Robotic group had a higher body mass index (±SD) (32.9 ± 6.5 versus 30.4 ± 7.1, p 0.012) and more frequent history of adnexal surgery (12.9 versus 4.2%, p 0.031). Laparoscopic group had a higher number of concurrent salpingectomy (81 versus 66.3%, p 0.02). Estimated blood loss did not differ between procedures. Compared to robotic hysterectomies, laparoscopic procedures added 47 min (CI: 31–63 min; p < 0.001) of operative time, costed $1648 more (CI: 500–2797; p = 0. 005) and had triple the odds of having an overnight admission (OR = 2.94 CI: 1.34–6.44; p = 0.007). After stratification of cases by uterine weight, the mean operative time difference between the two groups in uteri between 750 and 1000 g and in uteri >1000 g was 81.3 min (CI: 51.3–111.3, p < 0.0001) and 70 min (CI: 26–114, p < 0.005), respectively, in favor of the robotic group. Mean direct cost difference in uteri between 750 and 1000 g and uteri >1000 g was 1859$ (CI: 629–3090, p < 0.006) and 4509$ (CI: 377–8641, p < 0.004), respectively, also in favor of the robotic group. In expert hands, robotic hysterectomy for uteri weighing more than 750 g may be associated with shorter operative time and improved cost profile.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nReferences\nAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Health Services Research on Hysterectomy and Alternatives. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/hysterec.htm. Accessed 8/14/2010.\nJacoby VL, Autry A, Jacobson G, Domush R, Nakagawa S, Jacoby A (2009) Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 114:1041–1048\nAdvincula AP, Wang K (2009) Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 16:291–301\nWright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI et al (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 309:689–698\nBarbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs: the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 363:701–704\nTapper AM, Hannola M, Zeitlin R (2014) Isoj€arvi J, Sintonen H, Ikonen TS. A systematic review and cost analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy in malignant and benign conditions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 177:1–10\nMartino MA, Berger EA, McFetridge JT, Schubella J, Gosciniac G, Wejksznr T et al (2014) A comparison of quality outcome measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: robotic vs non-robotic approaches. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:389–393\nLeonnerfors C, Reynisson P, Persson J (2015) A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:78–86\nMartınez-Maestre MA, Gambadauro P, Gonz_alez-Cejudo C, Torrejon R (2014) Total laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without robotic assistance: a prospective controlled study. Surg Innov 21:250–255\nParaiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T et al (2013) A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208:368.e1–368.e7\nSarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Sch€ar G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 120:604–611\nSarlos D, Kots L (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 23:283–288\nLim PC, Crane JT, English EJ, Farnam RW, Garza DM, Winter ML et al (2016) Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons for benign indications. Int J Gynecol Obstet. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.11.010\nLenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:589–594\nWoelk J, Casiano E, Weaver A et al (2013) Learning Curve of Robotic Hysterectomies. Obstet Gynecol. 121(1):87–96\nAlbright BB, Witte T, Tofte AN, Chou J, Black JD, Desai VB et al (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\nMoawad GN, Abikhalil ED, Opoku-Anane J (2016) Comparison of methods of morcellation: manual versus power. Acta Obstet et Gyn 95(1):52–54\nMinig L, Chuang L, Patrono MG, Cardenas-Rebollo JM, Garcia-Donas J (2015) Surgical outcomes and complications of prophylactic salpingectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy in premenopausal women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:653–657\nPayne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:286–291\nShashoua AR, Gill D, Locher SR (2009) Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS 13:364–369\nPasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738\nJonsdottir GM, Jorgensen S, Cohen SL, Wright KN, Shah NT, Chavan N et al (2011) Increasing minimally invasive hysterectomy: effect on cost and complications. Obstet Gynecol 117:1142–1149\nWright JD, Ananth C, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI et al (2013) Robotically assisted versus laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nCorresponding author\nEthics declarations\nEthical approval\nAll procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.\nConflict of interest\nAuthor Abi Khalil, Author Tyan, Author Shu, Author Amdur, Author Scheib and Author Marfori declare that they have no conflict of interest. Author Moawad is a speaker for Intuitive surgical and Applied Medical.\nFunding\nNo funding or financial support was received for the study.\nRights and permissions\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nMoawad, G.N., Abi Khalil, E.D., Tyan, P. et al. Comparison of cost and operative outcomes of robotic hysterectomy compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy across different uterine weights. J Robotic Surg 11, 433–439 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0674-4\nReceived:\nAccepted:\nPublished:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0674-4","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}