Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: Impact on cost and clinical outcomes

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 730-738

  Pasic, Resad P ^a   Rizzo, John A ^b   Fang, Hai ^c   Ross, Susan ^d   Moore, Matt ^e   Gunnarsson, Candace ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

^b STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^d S2 Statistical Solutions Inc   (United States)

^e ETHICON INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Hysterectomy; Laparoscopic; Robot assisted

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; ROBOTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HOSPITAL COSTS; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPY; LENGTH OF STAY; MIDDLE AGED; ROBOTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79956317433     PISSN: 15534650     EISSN: 15534669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.06.009     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Agency for Health Research and Quality Three characteristics double the likelihood of hysterectomy for women with common non-cancerous pelvic conditions. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/sep07/ 0907RA13.htm. Retrieved January 18, 2010.
2. Wu JM,Wechter ME, Geller EJ, Nguyen TV, Visco AG. Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:1091-1095.
3. Farquhar CM, Steiner CA. Hysterectomy rates in the United States 1990-1997. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:229-234.
4. Advincula AP, Song A. The role of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:331-336.
5. Advincula AP, Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:291-301.
6. Beste TM, Nelson KH, Daucher JA. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy utilizing a robotic surgical system. JSLS. 2005;9:13-15.
7. Fiorentino RP, Zepeda M, Goldstein BH, John CR, Rettenmaier MA. Pilot study assessing robotic laparoscopic hysterectomy and patient outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13:60-63.
8. Payne TN, Dauterive FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15: 286-291.
9. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, et al. A case-control study of robotassisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199. 357. el-7.
10. Magrina JF, Kho RM,Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109:86-91.
11. Nezhat C, Saberi NS, Shahmohamady B, Nezhat F. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in gynecological surgery. JSLS. 2006;10:317-320.
12. Fiorentino RP, Zepeda MA, Goldstein BH, John CR, Rettenmaier MA. Pilot study assessing robotic laparoscopic hysterectomy and patient outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13:60-63.
13. Lenihan JP, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:589-594.
14. Premier, Inc. website: Available at: http://www.premierinc.com/. Accessed June 18, 2009.
15. Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau S, Ransom SB. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:698-705.
16. Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1375-1380.
17. Wexner SD, Bergamaschi R, Lacy A, et al. The current status of robotic pelvic surgery: results of a multinational interdisciplinary consensus conference. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:438-443.