Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 211–216 | Cite as

Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison of outcomes and cost

  • Darron Halliday
  • Susie Lau
  • Zvi Vaknin
  • Claire Deland
  • Mark Levental
  • Elizabeth McNamara
  • Raphael Gotlieb
  • Rebecca Kaufer
  • Jeffrey How
  • Eva Cohen
  • Walter H. Gotlieb
Original Article

Abstract

Operative and peri-operative outcomes, complications, and cost for radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer with negative sentinel nodes have been compared for robotics and laparotomy. Forty patients underwent radical hysterectomy with/out bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, for early-stage cervical cancer. All cases were performed by one of two surgeons, at a single institution (16 robotic, 24 laparotomy). The data for the robotic group were collected prospectively and compared with data for a historic cohort who underwent laparotomy. The data included demographics and peri-operative variables including operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node count, hospital stay, and complications. Additionally, real direct hospital cost was compared for both modalities. Patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy experienced longer operative time than the laparotomy cohort (351 min vs. 283 min P = 0.0001). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower for the robotic cohort than for the laparotomy cohort (106 ml vs. 546 ml P < 0.0001). The minor complication rate was lower in the robotic cohort than for laparotomy (19% vs. 63% P = 0.003). Average hospital stay for the robotic patients was significantly shorter than for those undergoing laparotomy (1.9 days versus 7.2 days, P < 0.0001). Lymph node retrieval did not differ between the two groups (robotic 15 nodes, laparotomy 13 nodes). The total average peri-operative costs for radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy completed via laparotomy was CAN $11,764 ± 6,790, and for robotic assistance 8,183 ± 1,089 (P = 0.002). When amortization of the robot was included, there remained a trend in favor of the robotic approach, but it did not reach statistical significance. Whereas robotics takes longer to perform than traditional laparotomy, it provides the patient with a shorter hospital stay, less need for pain medications, and reduced peri-operative morbidity. In addition real average hospital costs tend to be lower.

Keywords

Radical hysterectomy Cervical cancer Cost Robotics Laparotomy Complications, economical considerations 

Abbreviations

RRH

Robotic radical hysterectomy

ORH

Open radical hysterectomy

References

  1. 1.
    Committee on Practice B-G (2002) ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and treatment of cervical carcinomas, number 35. Obstet Gynecol 99(5 Pt 1):855–867Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hacker N, Friedlander M (2010) Cervical cancer. In: Bereck L, Neville N (eds) Berek & Hacker’s gynecologic oncology, 5th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 341–395Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frumovitz M, Sun C, MR M, Bevers M, Brown J, Slomovitz B et al (2007) Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 110(5):1174–1175. doi:10.097/01.AOG.0000288514.69638.a6 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nezhat F (2008) Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: laparoscopy versus robotics. Gynecol Oncol 111(2, Suppl 1):S29–S32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jung YW, Kim SW, Kim YT (2009) Recent advances of robotic surgery and single port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology. J Gynecol Oncol 20(3):137–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R, Woo R, Reyes R, Hernandez-Boussard T et al (2010) A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 147:830–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN et al (2008) A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(4):357 e1–357 e7Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shepherd JH (1996) Cervical and vulva cancer: changes in FIGO definitions of staging. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103(5):405–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Platt JF, Bree RL, Davidson D (1990) Ultrasound of the normal nongravid uterus: correlation with gross and histopathology. J Clin Ultrasound 18(1):15–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boggess JF (2007) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: evolution of a new surgical paradigm. J Robot Surg 1(1):31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Feltmate CM (2008) Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):425–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maggioni A, Minig L, Zanagnolo V, Peiretti M, Sanguineti F, Bocciolone L et al (2009) Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study. Gynecol Oncol 115(1):60–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):407–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Levenback C et al (2008) A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(5):584–588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darron Halliday
    • 1
  • Susie Lau
    • 1
  • Zvi Vaknin
    • 1
  • Claire Deland
    • 2
  • Mark Levental
    • 3
  • Elizabeth McNamara
    • 4
  • Raphael Gotlieb
    • 1
  • Rebecca Kaufer
    • 1
  • Jeffrey How
    • 1
  • Eva Cohen
    • 5
  • Walter H. Gotlieb
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Segal Cancer Center, SMBD Jewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Nursing, Segal Cancer Center, Jewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Segal Cancer Center, Jewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Department of Diagnostic Medicine, Segal Cancer Center, Jewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Department of Pharmacy, Segal Cancer Center, Jewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations