Robot assisted hysterectomy - its benefits and advantages over other routes of hysterectomies: a retrospective cohort study

C. P. Dadhich; Nidhi Mehta; Tripti Dadhich; Surmil Sharma; Shweta Mangal

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20260173

Authors

C. P. Dadhich Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, C. K. Birla Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Nidhi Mehta Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, C. K. Birla Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Tripti Dadhich Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, C. K. Birla Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Surmil Sharma Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, C. K. Birla Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Shweta Mangal Department of Community Medicine, MGM Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20260173

Keywords:

Hysterectomy routes, Minimally invasive surgery, Perioperative outcomes, Robot-assisted hysterectomy

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive hysterectomy has become the preferred approach for benign gynecological conditions. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy (RALH) has been introduced to overcome certain technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 165 women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynecological indications at a tertiary care center between November 2023 and February 2024. Patients underwent RALH, total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) or vaginal hysterectomy (VH). Perioperative outcomes including operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative pain scores (VAS) and complications were compared.

Results: Of the 165 cases, 43 underwent RALH, 64 TLH, 26 TAH and 32 VH. Baseline demographic parameters were comparable across groups. RALH was associated with significantly lower mean blood loss (8.49±5.51 ml), shorter hospital stay (1.3±0.4 days) and lower postoperative VAS scores compared to other routes (p<0.001). No conversions to laparotomy were required. Secondary hemorrhage was least frequent in the RALH group.

Conclusions: Robot-assisted hysterectomy demonstrates favorable perioperative outcomes in selected patients with benign gynecological conditions. While clinical differences were statistically significant, their impact should be interpreted in the context of patient selection and resource availability.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Merrill RM. Hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 1997–2005. Med Sci Monit. 2008;14(1):24–31.

Reich H, DeCaprio J, McGlynn F. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg. 1989;5(2):213–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/gyn.1989.5.213

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA clearance of robotic surgical systems for gynecologic procedures. 2005.

Advincula AP, Song A. The role of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(4):331–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e328216f90b

Lenfant L, Canlorbe G, Belghiti J. Robotic-assisted benign hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic, vaginal and open surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2023;17(6):2647–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01724-6

International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), 2019–21: India Fact Sheet. Mumbai: IIPS. 2021.

Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A. Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;330(7506):1478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7506.1478

Carlson KJ, Nichols DH, Schiff I. Indications for hysterectomy. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(12):856–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199303253281207

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 701. Choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(6):155–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002112

Uccella S, Ceccaroni M, Cromi A. Vaginal cuff dehiscence after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(4):1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.11.006

Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, McHale C, Nezhat A. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(6):590–602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.070

Intuitive Surgical Inc. da Vinci® Surgical System: surgeon-controlled robotic platform. Sunnyvale (CA). 2005.

Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.186

Albright BB, Witte T, Tofte AN. Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(1):18–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.003

Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schär G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(3):604–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318265b61a

Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):3677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub4