Robotic radical hysterectomy: Comparison of outcomes and cost

Journal of Robotic Surgery

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 211-216

  Halliday, Darron ^a   Lau, Susie ^a   Vaknin, Zvi ^a   Deland, Claire ^a   Levental, Mark ^a   McNamara, Elizabeth ^a   Gotlieb, Raphael ^a   Kaufer, Rebecca ^a   How, Jeffrey ^a   Cohen, Eva ^a   Gotlieb, Walter H ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Complications, economical considerations; Cost; Laparotomy; Radical hysterectomy; Robotics

Indexed keywords

BLOOD; DISEASES; HOSPITALS; ROBOTICS;

BLOOD LOSS; CERVICAL CANCERS; COMPLICATION, ECONOMICAL CONSIDERATION; GROUP ROBOTICS; HOSPITAL COSTS; LAPAROTOMY; LYMPH NODE; OPERATIVE VARIABLES; RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY; SENTINEL NODE;

COSTS;

EID: 78649772276     PISSN: 18632483     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-010-0205-z     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Committee on Practice B-G (2002) ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and treatment of cervical carcinomas, number 35. Obstet Gynecol 99(5 Pt 1): 855-867.
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 341-395.
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.
4. Nezhat F (2008) Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: laparoscopy versus robotics. Gynecol Oncol 111(2, Suppl 1): S29-S32.
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): 137-144.
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: 830-839.
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 e7.
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): 205-213.
9. Shepherd JH (1996) Cervical and vulva cancer: changes in FIGO definitions of staging. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103(5): 405-406.
10. Platt JF, Bree RL, Davidson D (1990) Ultrasound of the normal nongravid uterus: correlation with gross and histopathology. J Clin Ultrasound 18(1): 15-19.
11. Boggess JF (2007) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: evolution of a new surgical paradigm. J Robot Surg 1(1): 31-37.
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): 425-430.
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): 60-64.
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): 407-411.
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): 584-588.