Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience

Camran Nezhat, Ofer Lavie, Madeleine Lemyre, Ofer Gemer, Lisa Bhagan, Ceana Nezat

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

60 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To compare robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH) with a matched control group of standard laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH). Methods: A retrospective chart review of all RALH was performed. All cases were compared with a matched control group of standard LH. Comparisons were based on Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney, and exact chi-square tests. Results: Between January 2006 and August 2007, 26 consecutiveRALH were performed (10 with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy). These were compared with 50 matched control standard LH (22 with bilateral salpingooophorectomy). The 2 groups were matched by age (P=0.49), body mass index (P=0.25), gravidity (P=0.11), previous abdomino-pelvic surgery (P=0.37), and size of the excised uterus (P=0.72). Mean surgical time for RALH was 276 minutes (range, 150 to 440) compared with 206 minutes (range, 110 to 420) for standard LH (P=0.01). Blood loss, hospitalization length, and postoperative complications were not significantly different. No conversion to laparotomy was reported in either group. Conclusion: Robotic technology was successfully used for hysterectomy with a similar surgical outcome to that of standard LH. This technology offers exciting potential applications, especially for remote telesurgery, and to facilitate teaching of endoscopic surgery.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)125-128
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Volume13
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2 Nov 2009
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Da Vinci
  • Hysterectomy
  • Laparoscopy gynecology
  • Robot
  • Surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this