{"paper_id":"af3997d4-fed0-4adb-b235-9dcefce75568","body_text":"Abstract\nSurgical duration for endometriosis treatment varies based on the anatomical complexity of the disease and the surgical technique applied. However, the independent effects of each of these factors remain poorly understood. We hypothesized that intestinal involvement and the presence of endometrioma, whether isolated or combined, significantly increase operative time, regardless of the surgical technique. This study aimed to assess how endometriosis phenotype and surgical approach influence operative time. This retrospective observational study included 263 patients who underwent either conventional laparoscopy (n = 113) or robotic-assisted surgery (n = 150) between January 2020 and December 2024. Patients were stratified into four groups: (1) isolated deep infiltrating endometriosis, (2) endometrioma without intestinal involvement, (3) intestinal endometriosis without endometrioma, and (4) combined presentation (endometrioma with intestinal involvement). Univariate analyses and multiple linear regression models were used to examine the effects of disease phenotype and surgical approach on operative time. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The presence of endometrioma and intestinal involvement were both significant predictors of increased operative time, with a cumulative effect in combined cases. Compared to isolated DIE, there was an average increase of 63.4 min for isolated endometrioma cases (p < 0.001), 40.9 min for isolated intestinal endometriosis (p = 0.004), and 103.8 min for combined presentation (p < 0.001). The robotic approach added an average of 34.0 min to operative time (p < 0.001), with the effect most pronounced in patients with endometrioma. Age was also a significant factor, contributing an additional 1.5 min per year (p = 0.035). The estimated mean docking time for robotic cases was approximately 12 min. When stratified by disease subtype, only the isolated endometrioma group showed a statistically significant difference between surgical techniques, with robotic-assisted surgery adding 55 min (p = 0.007). In the other groups, including those with intestinal involvement, no significant differences were observed between approaches, although there was a numerical trend towards longer operative times with the robotic technique. Operative time is primarily influenced by the clinical presentation of endometriosis, with endometrioma, especially when combined with intestinal involvement, having the greatest impact. Although robotic-assisted surgery was associated with longer operative times overall, it was more frequently used in complex cases, suggesting a positive selection bias. The additional time likely reflects both the technical intricacy of robotic procedures and the docking process. Nevertheless, this technology may offer advantages for complex dissections. These findings underscore the importance of individualized surgical planning based on the anatomical characteristics of the disease rather than solely on the choice of surgical platform.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nData availability\nNo datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.\nReferences\nEstes SJ, Soliman AM, Epstein AJ et al (2019) National trends in inpatient endometriosis admissions: patients, procedures and outcomes, 2006–2015. PLoS ONE 14:e0222889\nSong Z, Li S, Luo M et al (2023) Assessing the role of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery in patients with a diagnosis of endometriosis: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 102:e33104\nRocha AM, de Albuquerque MM, Schmidt EM et al (2018) Late impact of the laparoscopic treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis with segmental colorectal resection. Arq Bras Cir Dig 31:e1406\nLimberger LF, Jacobsen L, Koshimizu RT et al (2018) Surgery for deep endometriosis: standardization of the operating technique. J Surg Oper Care. https://doi.org/10.15744/2455-7617.3.202\nNezhat C, Nezhat F, Nezhat C (2013) Nezhat’s video-assisted and robotic-assisted laparoscopy and hysteroscopy with DVD. Cambridge University Press, Boca Raton\nOliveira MAP, Crispi CP, Oliveira FM et al (2014) Double circular stapler technique for bowel resection in rectosigmoid endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:136–141\nMassimello F, Di Spiezio SA, Bifulco G et al (2023) New technologies in the surgical management of endometriosis. AboutOpen 10:50–54\nKang J-H, Kim T-J (2020) The role of robotic surgery for endometriosis. Gyne Robot Surg 1:36–49\nNezhat FR, Sirota I (2014) Perioperative outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy surgery for advanced-stage endometriosis. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00094\nNezhat C, Hajhosseini B, King LP (2011) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic treatment of bowel, bladder, and ureteral endometriosis. JSLS 15:387–392\nSoto E, Luu TH, Liu X et al (2017) Laparoscopy vs. robotic surgery for endometriosis (LAROSE): a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril 107:996-1002.e3\nPavone M, Baroni A, Campolo F et al (2024) Robotic assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for deep endometriosis: a meta-analysis of current evidence. J Robot Surg 18:212\nAraujo SEA, Seid VE, Marques RM, Gomes MTV (2016) Advantages of the robotic approach to deep infiltrating rectal endometriosis: because less is more. J Robot Surg 10:165–169\nCsirzó Á, Kovács DP, Szabó A et al (2024) Robot-assisted laparoscopy does not have demonstrable advantages over conventional laparoscopy in endometriosis surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 38:529–539\nFerrari FA, Youssef Y, Naem A et al (2024) Robotic surgery for deep-infiltrating endometriosis: is it time to take a step forward? Front Med (Lausanne) 11:1387036\nCamarillo DB, Krummel TM, Salisbury JK Jr (2004) Robotic technology in surgery: past, present, and future. Am J Surg 188:2S-15S\nCatanzarite T, Saha S, Pilecki MA, Kim JY, Milad MP (2015) Longer operative time during benign laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy is associated with increased 30-day perioperative complications. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(6):S81\nLeborne P, Huberlant S, Masia F, de Tayrac R, Letouzey V, Allegre L (2022) Clinical outcomes following surgical management of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Sci Rep 12:21800\nFunding\nThe authors have not disclosed any funding.\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nContributions\nAll authors contributed equally.\nCorresponding author\nEthics declarations\nConflict of interest\nThe authors declare no competing interests.\nAdditional information\nPublisher's Note\nSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.\nRights and permissions\nSpringer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nOsaki, A.J.D., de Oliveira, M.A.P. Laparoscopy and robotic-assisted surgery for endometriosis: how intestinal and ovarian involvement impact operative time. J Robotic Surg 19, 417 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02588-8\nReceived:\nAccepted:\nPublished:\nVersion of record:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02588-8","source_license":"public-domain-us","license_restricted":false}