Perioperative outcomes of three-port robotically assisted hysterectomy: a continuous series of 53 cases

This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of 3-port robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH), using a consecutive series of women who underwent 3-port RALH in a university hospital. From November 2010 until June 2013 we operated on 53 women, whose mean age was 48.4 ± 7.7 years (range 35–68 years), and mean body mass index was 27.1 ± 5.1 kg/m2 (range 19.5–42.9 kg/m2). The indications for hysterectomy were myoma in 31 (58.5 %), adenomyosis in 10 (18.9 %), cervical dysplasia in 4 (7.5 %), neoplasia in 4 (7.5 %), and recurrent polyps or postmenopausal bleeding in the remaining 4 women (7.5 %). We performed total RALH in 50 cases (94.3 %) and subtotal in the others. The median duration of total intervention was 169 min (interquartile range 147.5–206.5 min). The mean weight of the uterus was 209.8 ± 166.6 g (range 36–790 g) and mean estimated blood loss was 72.3 ± 75.9 ml (range 0–300 ml). There were no perioperative complications, in particular no blood transfusions nor conversions to laparotomy. The median hospital stay was 4 days (interquartile range 3–4 days). One patient was reoperated 1 month later for vaginal vault hematoma and another was readmitted 3 weeks post-operatively due to vaginal vault dehiscence after premature intercourse, but did not require reoperation. Three-port RALH is feasible and safe for simple hysterectomy. We believe this experience using minimum ports to be useful to prepare for robotically assisted single-port hysterectomy. Similar content being viewed by others

Jacoby VL, Autry A, Jacobson G, Domush R, Nakagawa S, Jacoby A (2009) Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches. Obstet Gynecol 114:1041–1048 Reich H, DeCaprio J, McGlynn F (1989) Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Gynecol Surg 5:213–216 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 309:689–698 Payne 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 Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150:92–96 Pasic 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 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(368):e1–e7 Betcher RE, Chaney JP, Lacy PR, Otey SK, Wood DJ (2014) Analysis of postoperative pain in robotic versus traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Robotic Surg 8:35–41. doi:10.1007/s11701-013-0418-z Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA 3rd (1991) Laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using a single umbilical puncture. N J Med 88:721–726 Chittawar PB, Magon N, Bhandari S (2013) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: LESS is actually how much less? J Midlife Health 4:46–51 Fader AN, Cohen S, Escobar PF, Gunderson C (2010) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 22:331–338 Uppal S, Frumovitz M, Escobar P, Ramirez PT (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: review of literature and available technology. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:12–23 Spuhler SC, Sauthier PG, Chardonnens EG, De Grandi P (1994) A new vaginal extractor for laparoscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1:401–404 Reynolds RK, Advincula AP (2006) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 191:555–560 Kho RM, Hilger WS, Hentz JG, Magtibay PM, Magrina JF (2007) Robotic hysterectomy: technique and initial outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(113):e1–e4 Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Mendivil A, Rossi E, Hanna R (2009) Perioperative outcomes of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign cases with complex pathology. Obstet Gynecol 114:585–593 Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schar G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 120:604–611 Hur HC, Guido RS, Mansuria SM, Hacker MR, Sanfilippo JS, Lee TT (2007) Incidence and patient characteristics of vaginal cuff dehiscence after different modes of hysterectomies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14:311–317 Ramirez PT, Klemer DP (2002) Vaginal evisceration after hysterectomy: a literature review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 57:462–467 Hur HC, Donnellan N, Mansuria S, Barber RE, Guido R, Lee T (2011) Vaginal cuff dehiscence after different modes of hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 118:794–801 Kho RM, Akl MN, Cornella JL, Magtibay PM, Wechter ME, Magrina JF (2009) Incidence and characteristics of patients with vaginal cuff dehiscence after robotic procedures. Obstet Gynecol 114:231–235 Sarlos D, Kots LA (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 23:283–288 Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan KC, Ko CW, Cheung HY, Lee KW (2003) Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1624–1627 Conflict of interest Patrick Dällenbach and Patrick Petignat declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical standard All 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. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study. Author information Authors and Affiliations Corresponding author Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article Dällenbach, P., Petignat, P. Perioperative outcomes of three-port robotically assisted hysterectomy: a continuous series of 53 cases. J Robotic Surg 8, 221–226 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0454-3 Received: Accepted: Published: Issue date: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0454-3