• Sandra Lopez, Zuber D Mulla, Loretta Hernandez, Devin M Garza, Thomas N Payne, and Richard W Farnam.
• Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, TX. Electronic address: sandra.lopez@ttuhsc.edu.
• J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016 Jan 1; 23 (1): 84-8.

Study ObjectiveTo 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.DesignA retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification Level II-2.SettingMulticenter (private hospitals).PatientsGynecologic patients who underwent a hysterectomy for benign indications via robotic-assisted, single-site laparoscopy (n = 50) versus LESS (n = 50).InterventionsObservational study.Measurements And Main ResultsContinuous 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.ConclusionsThis 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.Published by Elsevier Inc.

18 keywords...

hide…