These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A Comparison of Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted, Single-Site Laparoscopy Versus Laparoendoscopic Single Site for Benign Hysterectomy.
    Author: Lopez S, Mulla ZD, Hernandez L, Garza DM, Payne TN, Farnam RW.
    Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2016 Jan; 23(1):84-8. PubMed ID: 26321172.
    Abstract:
    STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative outcomes, including estimated blood loss, conversion to open laparotomy, length of stay, and total operative time of hysterectomies using robotic-assisted, single-site laparoscopy with laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) for benign indications. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification Level II-2. SETTING: Multicenter (private hospitals). PATIENTS: Gynecologic patients who underwent a hysterectomy for benign indications via robotic-assisted, single-site laparoscopy (n = 50) versus LESS (n = 50). INTERVENTIONS: Observational study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Continuous outcomes were analyzed using multiple linear regression, whereas the dichotomous outcome of conversion was analyzed using a multiple log-binomial regression model. Linear and log-binomial regression coefficients were adjusted for the ages of the patients and other clinical factors. A total of 100 consecutive patient records were available for analysis: 50 for robotic-assisted, single-site laparoscopy and 50 for LESS. Univariate analyses revealed that both groups were similar in mean age (robotic, 46.0 years; LESS, 45.4 years; p = .75), but not mean body mass index (robotic, 25.9 kg/m(2); LESS, 28.8 kg/m(2); p = .02). There was no difference in the unadjusted (crude) risk of conversion to a multiport procedure between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p = .37). There were only 2 major complications (cystotomy and vaginal dehiscence) in the LESS arm and 1 vaginal dehiscence in the robotic-assisted, single-site arm. After adjusting for 7 potential confounders, no relationship was detected between the type of approach (robotic vs laparoscopic) and the outcome of a major complication (exact odds ratio, 0.55; exact p = 1.0). A multivariate linear regression analysis that compared the 2 groups (robotic-assisted single site vs LESS) revealed no differences in estimated blood loss. On average, the robotic-assisted, single-site group had a length of stay that was 8.12 hours shorter than the LESS group (p = .003) after adjusting for patient characteristics. Total operative time was an average of 24.9 min longer in the robotic-assisted, single-site group (p = .002) after adjustment. A plot of total operative time in minutes by chronological case number and procedural approach was analyzed to estimate a learning curve. This plot showed a steeper learning curve with the robotic-assisted, single-site approach. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary observational study found that the robotic-assisted, single-site group had a statistically significant decrease in length of hospital stay, but also experienced an increase in total operative time. There were no conversions to open laparotomies.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]