Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Perioperative outcomes of three-port robotically assisted hysterectomy: a continuous series of 53 cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of 3-port robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH), using a consecutive series of women who underwent 3-port RALH in a university hospital. From November 2010 until June 2013 we operated on 53 women, whose mean age was 48.4 ± 7.7 years (range 35–68 years), and mean body mass index was 27.1 ± 5.1 kg/m2 (range 19.5–42.9 kg/m2). The indications for hysterectomy were myoma in 31 (58.5 %), adenomyosis in 10 (18.9 %), cervical dysplasia in 4 (7.5 %), neoplasia in 4 (7.5 %), and recurrent polyps or postmenopausal bleeding in the remaining 4 women (7.5 %). We performed total RALH in 50 cases (94.3 %) and subtotal in the others. The median duration of total intervention was 169 min (interquartile range 147.5–206.5 min). The mean weight of the uterus was 209.8 ± 166.6 g (range 36–790 g) and mean estimated blood loss was 72.3 ± 75.9 ml (range 0–300 ml). There were no perioperative complications, in particular no blood transfusions nor conversions to laparotomy. The median hospital stay was 4 days (interquartile range 3–4 days). One patient was reoperated 1 month later for vaginal vault hematoma and another was readmitted 3 weeks post-operatively due to vaginal vault dehiscence after premature intercourse, but did not require reoperation. Three-port RALH is feasible and safe for simple hysterectomy. We believe this experience using minimum ports to be useful to prepare for robotically assisted single-port hysterectomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jacoby VL, Autry A, Jacobson G, Domush R, Nakagawa S, Jacoby A (2009) Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches. Obstet Gynecol 114:1041–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Reich H, DeCaprio J, McGlynn F (1989) Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Gynecol Surg 5:213–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:286–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150:92–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:730–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T, Einarsson JI (2013) A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208(368):e1–e7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Betcher RE, Chaney JP, Lacy PR, Otey SK, Wood DJ (2014) Analysis of postoperative pain in robotic versus traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Robotic Surg 8:35–41. doi:10.1007/s11701-013-0418-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pelosi MA, Pelosi MA 3rd (1991) Laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using a single umbilical puncture. N J Med 88:721–726

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chittawar PB, Magon N, Bhandari S (2013) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: LESS is actually how much less? J Midlife Health 4:46–51

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fader AN, Cohen S, Escobar PF, Gunderson C (2010) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 22:331–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Uppal S, Frumovitz M, Escobar P, Ramirez PT (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: review of literature and available technology. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:12–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Spuhler SC, Sauthier PG, Chardonnens EG, De Grandi P (1994) A new vaginal extractor for laparoscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1:401–404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reynolds RK, Advincula AP (2006) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 191:555–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kho RM, Hilger WS, Hentz JG, Magtibay PM, Magrina JF (2007) Robotic hysterectomy: technique and initial outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(113):e1–e4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Mendivil A, Rossi E, Hanna R (2009) Perioperative outcomes of robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign cases with complex pathology. Obstet Gynecol 114:585–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schar G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 120:604–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hur HC, Guido RS, Mansuria SM, Hacker MR, Sanfilippo JS, Lee TT (2007) Incidence and patient characteristics of vaginal cuff dehiscence after different modes of hysterectomies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14:311–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramirez PT, Klemer DP (2002) Vaginal evisceration after hysterectomy: a literature review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 57:462–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hur HC, Donnellan N, Mansuria S, Barber RE, Guido R, Lee T (2011) Vaginal cuff dehiscence after different modes of hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 118:794–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kho RM, Akl MN, Cornella JL, Magtibay PM, Wechter ME, Magrina JF (2009) Incidence and characteristics of patients with vaginal cuff dehiscence after robotic procedures. Obstet Gynecol 114:231–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sarlos D, Kots LA (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 23:283–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Poon CM, Chan KW, Lee DW, Chan KC, Ko CW, Cheung HY, Lee KW (2003) Two-port versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 17:1624–1627

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Patrick Dällenbach and Patrick Petignat declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Dällenbach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dällenbach, P., Petignat, P. Perioperative outcomes of three-port robotically assisted hysterectomy: a continuous series of 53 cases. J Robotic Surg 8, 221–226 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0454-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0454-3

Keywords

Navigation