Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ascension St. John Hospital, 22101 Moross Rd, Detroit, MI, 48236, USA.
Department of Biomedical Investigations and Research, Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, MI, 48236, USA.
J Robot Surg. 2022 Oct;16(5):1199-1207. doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01340-2. Epub 2022 Jan 3.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of perioperative complications in robotic-assisted hysterectomies performed by high-volume robotic surgeons compared to conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies performed by all gynecologic surgeons. This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single-center community based hospital and medical center. A total of 332 patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications were included in this study. Half of these patients (n = 166) underwent conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy and the other half underwent a robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. The main outcome measures included composite complication rate, estimated blood loss (EBL), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Median (IQR) EBL was significantly lower for robotic hysterectomy [22.5 (30) mL] compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy [100 (150) mL, p < 0.0001]. LOS was significantly shorter for robotic hysterectomy (1.0 ± 0.2 day) compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy (1.2 ± 0.7 days, p = 0.04). Despite averaging 3.0 (IQR 1.0) concomitant procedures compared to 0 (IQR 1.0) for the conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies, the incidence of any type of complication was lower in the robotic hysterectomy group (2 vs. 6%, p = 0.05). Finally, in a logistic regression model controlling for multiple confounders, robotic-assisted hysterectomy was less likely to result in a perioperative complication compared to traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy [odds ratio (95% CI) = 0.2 (0.1, 0.90), p = 0.04]. In conclusion, robotic-assisted hysterectomy may reduce complications compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy when performed by high volume surgeons, especially in the setting of other concomitant gynecologic surgeries.
本研究旨在评估高容量机器人外科医生行机器人辅助子宫切除术与所有妇科外科医生行传统腹腔镜子宫切除术的围手术期并发症发生率。这项回顾性队列研究在一家单中心社区医院和医疗中心进行。共有 332 名因良性指征接受子宫切除术的患者纳入本研究。这些患者中有一半(n=166)接受了传统腹腔镜子宫切除术,另一半接受了机器人辅助腹腔镜子宫切除术。主要结局指标包括复合并发症发生率、估计失血量(EBL)和住院时间(LOS)。机器人子宫切除术的 EBL 中位数(IQR)明显低于腹腔镜子宫切除术[22.5(30)mL] [100(150)mL,p<0.0001]。机器人子宫切除术的 LOS 明显短于腹腔镜子宫切除术(1.0±0.2 天)[1.2±0.7 天,p=0.04]。尽管机器人子宫切除术的平均合并手术为 3.0(IQR 1.0),而传统腹腔镜子宫切除术为 0(IQR 1.0),但机器人子宫切除术组的任何类型并发症发生率较低(2%比 6%,p=0.05)。最后,在控制多个混杂因素的逻辑回归模型中,与传统腹腔镜子宫切除术相比,机器人辅助子宫切除术发生围手术期并发症的可能性较低[比值比(95%CI)=0.2(0.1,0.90),p=0.04]。总之,当由高容量外科医生进行时,机器人辅助子宫切除术可能比传统腹腔镜子宫切除术并发症更少,尤其是在其他妇科手术同时进行的情况下。