Objective: To compare the surgical outcomes and costs of robotic-assisted hysterectomy with the single-site (RSSH) or multiport approach (RH). Design: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database (Canadian Task Force classification II1). Setting: A university hospital. Patients: Consecutive women who underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for the treatment of benign gynecologic diseases. Interventions: Data on surgical approach, surgical outcomes, and costs were collected in a prospective database and retrospectively analyzed. Measurements and Main Results: The total operative time, console time, docking time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, and surgical complications rate were compared between the 2 study groups. Cost analysis was performed. One hundred four patients underwent total robotic-assisted hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (45 RSSH and 59 RH). There was no significant difference in the indications for surgery and in the characteristics of the patients between the 2 study groups. There was no significant difference between the single-site and multiport approach in console time, surgical complication rate, conversion rate, and postoperative pain. The docking time was lower in the RH group (p = .0001). The estimated blood loss and length of hospitalization were lower in the RSSH group (p = .0008 and p = .009, respectively). The cost analysis showed significant differences in favor of RSSH. Conclusion: RSSH should be preferred to RH when hysterectomy is performed for benign disease because it could be at least as equally effective and safe with a potential cost reduction. However, because of the high cost and absence of clear advantages, the robotic approach should be considered only for selected patients.

Single-site Versus Multiport Robotic Hysterectomy in Benign Gynecologic Diseases: A Retrospective Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes and Cost Analysis

FERRERO, SIMONE;
2016-01-01

Abstract

Objective: To compare the surgical outcomes and costs of robotic-assisted hysterectomy with the single-site (RSSH) or multiport approach (RH). Design: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database (Canadian Task Force classification II1). Setting: A university hospital. Patients: Consecutive women who underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for the treatment of benign gynecologic diseases. Interventions: Data on surgical approach, surgical outcomes, and costs were collected in a prospective database and retrospectively analyzed. Measurements and Main Results: The total operative time, console time, docking time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, and surgical complications rate were compared between the 2 study groups. Cost analysis was performed. One hundred four patients underwent total robotic-assisted hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (45 RSSH and 59 RH). There was no significant difference in the indications for surgery and in the characteristics of the patients between the 2 study groups. There was no significant difference between the single-site and multiport approach in console time, surgical complication rate, conversion rate, and postoperative pain. The docking time was lower in the RH group (p = .0001). The estimated blood loss and length of hospitalization were lower in the RSSH group (p = .0008 and p = .009, respectively). The cost analysis showed significant differences in favor of RSSH. Conclusion: RSSH should be preferred to RH when hysterectomy is performed for benign disease because it could be at least as equally effective and safe with a potential cost reduction. However, because of the high cost and absence of clear advantages, the robotic approach should be considered only for selected patients.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11567/851893
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus 35
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 33
social impact