Robotic assisted hysterectomy in a teaching hospital over ten years: trends, outcomes and service evolution
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20262515Keywords:
Robotic hysterectomy, Complications, Trend, Outcomes, Endometrial cancerAbstract
Background: Robotic hysterectomy is increasingly utilised in gynaecology, particularly for patients with obesity, significant comorbidities, or oncological indications. Castle Hill Hospital established a robotic hysterectomy service in 2016. This study evaluates perioperative outcomes and trends in operative efficiency over a ten-year period in a high-risk, complex cohort.
Methods: Authors conducted a retrospective review of 374 patients who underwent robotic hysterectomy between 2016 and 2025. Collected data included patient age, BMI, comorbidities, prior abdominal surgery, surgical indication, intra- and postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, hospital stay and mean operating times.
Results: Patient ages ranged from 29 to 87 years. Obesity was common, with 81% having a BMI≥30, and 71% had multiple comorbidities, most frequently cardiovascular or metabolic. One-quarter had a history of open abdominal surgery. Endometrial cancer was the primary indication in 65%, mostly early-stage. Additional procedures included pelvic lymph node sampling (84 cases), adhesiolysis, omental biopsy, omentectomy, and appendectomy. Forty-one women (10.96%) had intraoperative complications, out of which 23 (6.15%) had conversion to laparotomy, mostly due to surgical difficulty, bleeding, adhesion or for specimen retrieval. Postoperative complications were seen in 10.4%, with two returns to theatre. Intraoperative complications occurred in 6.4%, most commonly vaginal tears and bleeding. Postoperative complications, including readmissions, were seen in 10.4%, with two returns to theatre. Length of stay was brief, with 76% discharged within 48 hours. Mean operating time improved from 193–195 minutes in 2016–2017 to 140 minutes.
Conclusion: Robotic hysterectomy is safe and effective in complex, high-risk patients. Low complication and conversion rates, short hospital stays, and improved operative efficiency reflect increasing service maturity, reduced resource use, and potential cost-effectiveness.
References
Galaal K, Donkers H, Bryant A, Lopes AD. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early-stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;(10):6655.
Cusimano MC, Simpson AN, Dossa F, Liani V, Kaur Y, Acuna SA, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy in endometrial cancer patients with obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of conversions and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(5):410–28.
Cucinella G, Mathur M, Liu Y, Li Y, Schivardi G, Chiantera V, et al. Trends and comparative study of robotic-assisted benign hysterectomy among morbidly obese patients in the United States. J Robot Surg. 2026;20(1):428.
Ind T, Laios A, Hacking M, Nobbenhuis M. A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(4):1825.
Bankar GR, Keoliya A. Robot-assisted surgery in gynecology. Cureus. 2022;14(9):29190.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Robot-assisted surgery for soft tissue procedures: early value assessment. Health Tech guidance HTG742. London: NICE. 2025.
NHS England; Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT). Implementation of robotic-assisted surgery in England. London: NHS England. 2025.
Takmaz Ö, Güngör M. Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy; comparison of early surgical outcomes. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2020;21(4):67.
Li B, Ma S, Xiong Z, Chen X, Qi X, Ma Y, Li R, Zhang R, Li X, Ha C. Comparative outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for complex hysterectomy: a retrospective study. Front Surg. 2026;12:1739304.
Zhang L, Yang L, Wang Y, Sun M, Tao Y. Clinical comparative study of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic surgery in patients with cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Surg. 2024;24:423.
Albright BB, Witte T, Tofte AN, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(1):18–27.
Iavazzo C, Gkegkes ID. Robotic assisted hysterectomy in obese patients: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293(6):1169–83.
Sinha R, Bana R, Sanjay M. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for the large uterus. JSLS. 2019;23(1):268.
Lee J. Learning curve in robotic hysterectomy for large uteri. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024.
Wright JD, Hershman DL. Robotic vs laparoscopic hysterectomy. JAMA. 2019;309(22):6798.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
