Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 35–41 | Cite as

Analysis of postoperative pain in robotic versus traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy

  • Raymond E. BetcherEmail author
  • James P. Chaney
  • Pamela R. Lacy
  • Stephen K. Otey
  • Duke J. Wood
Original Article


The aim of this study was to assess postoperative pain and narcotic use in the first 23 h following robotic versus traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign pathology. The study design was that of a retrospective case–control study of robotic (first 100 consecutive) versus traditional (last 100 consecutive) total laparoscopic hysterectomy cases at an obstetrics and gynecology multi-institutional community practice. Patient characteristics were equivalent in both groups (age, p = 0.364; body mass index, p = 0.326; uterine weight, p = 0.565), except for a higher number of Caucasians in the traditional laparoscopic group (p = 0.017). Compared to patients who underwent robotic laparoscopic hysterectomy, those who underwent the traditional procedure had higher visual analog scale pain scores (3.1 ± 1.5 vs. 4.6 ± 2.4, respectively; p < 0.001) and used more narcotics (27.5 vs. 35.4 mg hydrocodone, respectively; p < 0.05). Factors that could potentially increase pain (more procedures, more ports, total incision size, and longer operative time) were significantly higher in the robotic group, but only surgical approach, amount of narcotic, and age correlated with pain levels when evaluated with regression analysis. Complication rates were equivalent between groups. In conclusion, patients who underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy had statistically decreased postoperative pain scores and narcotic use than those who underwent the traditional laparoscopic approach, even when the robotic cases involved more procedures and ports and were associated with longer operative time.


da Vinci Laparoscopic hysterectomy Minimally invasive surgery Narcotics Pain Robotic 



The authors would like to thank April E. Hebert, Ph.D, Scientific Consultant, for manuscript assistance and preparation (paid directly by Dr. Betcher); she also consults for Intuitive Surgical, Inc. the manufacture of the da Vinci Surgical System.

Financial disclosure/conflict of interest

No funding was received for this study. Dr. Betcher proctored for Intuitive Surgical from 2008 to 2012. April E Hebert, Ph.D, Scientific Consultant, provided manuscript assistance and preparation and was paid directly by Dr. Betcher; she also consults for Intuitive Surgical, Inc. the manufacturer of the da Vinci Surgical System.


  1. 1.
    Merrill RM (2008) Hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 1997 through 2005. Med Sci Monit 14:CR24–CR31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blake J (2004) Hysterectomy quality report: measuring quality at Sunnybrook & Women’s/University of Toronto. In: Women’s Health Conference: Accountability for Excellence. Available at: Accessed 25 Mar 2012
  3. 3.
    Payne TN, Pitter MC (2011) Robotic-assisted surgery for the community gynecologist: can it be adopted? Clin Obstet Gynecol 54:391–411. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e31822b4998 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.01.008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shashoua AR, Gill D, Locher SR (2009) Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS 13:364–369PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Gemer O, Bhagan L (2009) Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience. JSLS 13:125–128PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.012 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giep BN, Giep HN, Hubert HB (2010) Comparison of minimally invasive surgical approaches for hysterectomy at a community hospital: robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. J Robot Surg 4:167–175. doi: 10.1007/s11701-010-0206-y PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matthews CA, Reid N, Ramakrishnan V, Hull K, Cohen S (2010) Evaluation of the introduction of robotic technology on route of hysterectomy and complications in the first year of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(499):e491–e495. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.07.022 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kilic GS, Moore G, Elbatanony A, Radecki C, Phelps JY, Borahay MA (2011) Comparison of perioperative outcomes of total laparoscopic and robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign pathology during introduction of a robotic program. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011:683703. doi: 10.1155/2011/683703 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dauterive E, Morris G (2012) Incidence and characteristics of vaginal cuff dehiscence in robotic-assisted and traditional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Robot Surg 6:149–154. doi: 10.1007/s11701-011-0285-4 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 240:205–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bucher P, Pugin F, Buchs NC, Ostermann S, Morel P (2011) Randomized clinical trial of laparoendoscopic single-site versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 98:1695–1702. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7689 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tugcu V, Ilbey YO, Mutlu B, Tasci AI (2010) Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery versus standard laparoscopic simple nephrectomy: a prospective randomized study. J Endourol 24:1315–1320. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0048 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walz MK, Groeben H, Alesina PF (2010) Single-access retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy (SARA) versus conventional retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy (CORA): a case-control study. World J Surg 34:1386–1390. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0494-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schroeck FR, Krupski TL, Sun L, Albala DM, Price MM, Polascik TJ, Robertson CN, Tewari AK, Moul JW (2008) Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54:785–793. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.063 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kho RM, Hilger WS, Hentz JG, Magtibay PM, Magrina JF (2007) Robotic hysterectomy: technique and initial outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(113):e111–e114Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b47030 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shultz TM (2012) Preemptive multimodal analgesia facilitates same-day discharge following robot-assisted hysterectomy. J Robot Surg 6:115–123. doi: 10.1007/s11701-011-0276-5 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Landeen LB, Bell MC, Hubert HB, Bennis LY, Knutsen-Larson SS, Seshadri-Kreaden U (2011) Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. S D Med 64:197–199 (201, 203 passim)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martino MA, Shubella J, Thomas MB, Morcrette RM, Schindler J, Williams S, Boulay R (2011) A cost analysis of postoperative management in endometrial cancer patients treated by robotics versus laparoscopic approach. Gynecol Oncol 523:528–531 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.08.021 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    White MA, Autorino R, Spana G, Laydner H, Hillyer SP, Khanna R, Yang B, Altunrende F, Isac W, Stein RJ, Haber GP, Kaouk JH (2011) Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site radical nephrectomy: surgical technique and comparative outcomes. Eur Urol 59:815–822. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.020 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hachem LE, Acholonu UC, Nezhat FR (2013) Postoperative pain and recovery after conventional laparoscopy compared with robotically assisted laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 121:547–553. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318280da64 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265b61a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1005–1013. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318231537c PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond E. Betcher
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • James P. Chaney
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pamela R. Lacy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stephen K. Otey
    • 1
    • 2
  • Duke J. Wood
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Physicians and Surgeons Clinic, Obstetrics and GynecologyBaptist Memorial Hospital-Golden TriangleColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Physicians and Surgeons Clinic, Obstetrics and GynecologyGilmore Memorial Regional Medical CenterAmoryUSA

Personalised recommendations