Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared to abdominal myomectomy

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

Abstract

A retrospective cohort of 100 robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RM) patients and 48 laparotomic myomectomy (LM) patients at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, MI, USA was examined to compare surgical outcomes of RM with LM. Details of age, race, body mass index (BMI), procedure duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), diameter of the largest leiomyoma and number of leiomyomata removed were collected. Procedure duration was significantly longer among RM patients (median: 194 min vs. 127.5 min; Wilcoxon rank sum (WRS) P < 0.001). EBL and LOS were both significantly greater among LM patients (EBL medians 200 vs. 100 ml, WRS P < 0.001; LOS medians 3 vs. 1, WRS P < 0.01). Among the RM patients, 39.4% had a LOS of at least 2 days compared to 89.4% among LM patients. Leiomyomata characteristics did not affect the observed associations. RM could enable widespread use of a minimally invasive approach for leiomyoma treatment.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Day Baird D, Dunson DB, Hill MC, Cousins D, Schectman JM (2003) High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:100–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Falcone T, Walters MD (2008) Hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 111:753–767

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mais V, Ajossa S, Guerriero S, Mascia M, Solla E, Melis GB (1996) Laparoscopic versus abdominal myomectomy: a prospective, randomized trial to evaluate benefits in early outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174:654–658

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Advincula AP, Song A, Burke W, Reynolds RK (2004) Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11:511–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau St, Ransom SB (2007) Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14:698–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Hsu S, Watson J, Barnett O, Lemyre M (2009) Robotic- assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy—a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril 91:556–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Seracchioli R, Rossi S, Govoni F et al (2000) Fertility and obstetric outcome after laparoscopic myomectomy of large myomata: a randomized comparison with abdominal myomectomy. Hum Reprod 15:2663–2668

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Alessandri F, Lijoi D, Mistrangelo E, Ferrero S, Ragni N (2006) Randomized study of laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy myomectomy for uterine myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13:92–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Palomba S, Zupi E, Falbo A et al (2007) A multicenter randomized, controlled study comparing laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy myomectomy: reproductive outcomes. Fertil Steril 88:933–941

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. LaMorte AI, Lalwani S, Diamond MP (1993) Morbidity associated with abdominal myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol 82:897–900

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, Kho RM (2009) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201(566):e561–e565

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Dr. Eisenstein is a paid consultant for Bovie Medical Corporation. The other authors do not have any disclosures or conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, 3031 W. Grand Blvd, NCO-7, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA

    Roopina Sangha, David I. Eisenstein, Amy George, Adnan Munkarah & Ganesa Wegienka

  2. Biostatistics and Research Epidemiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA

    Ganesa Wegienka

  3. Fellow- Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Methodist Hospital, Indiana University, 1633 N. Capitol Avenue, Suite 436, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Amy George

Authors
  1. Roopina Sangha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David I. Eisenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adnan Munkarah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ganesa Wegienka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roopina Sangha.

Additional information

Precis: Despite longer procedure times, robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is associated with reduced blood loss and length of stay compared to abdominal myomectomy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sangha, R., Eisenstein, D.I., George, A. et al. Surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared to abdominal myomectomy. J Robotic Surg 4, 229–233 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0213-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0213-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation