Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Sep;114(3):581-4. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b05d97.

Robotic adnexectomy compared with laparoscopy for adnexal mass.

Author information

  • 1Department of Gynecology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA. jmagrina@mayo.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate whether the application of robotic technology in the performance of adnexectomy resulted in benefits for the patient when compared with patients operated by laparoscopy.

METHODS:

Evaluation of 85 patients undergoing robotic adnexectomy and comparison with a group of 91 patients operated on by laparoscopy during the same period of time and by the same surgeons. Patients were compared by age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, indications, unilateral compared with bilateral adnexectomy, adhesions, size or weight or both of the adnexal mass, and previous abdominal or pelvic surgery. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to determine factors favorable to each technique. Comparison between the groups was evaluated using the Fisher exact test from a one-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS:

The robotic group had an increased number of obese (BMI 30 or more) and higher anesthetic risk (ASA classification 2 and 3) patients as compared with laparoscopy patients. The mean operating time was 12 minutes longer in the robotic group (P=.01). The mean blood loss (80 mL robotic, 71 mL laparoscopic), length of hospital stay (0.15 days robotic, 0.28 days laparoscopic), intraoperative complications (1% robotic, 2% laparoscopic), and postoperative complications (12% robotic, 11% laparoscopic) were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION:

: Laparoscopy and robotics provided similar results for the performance of adnexectomy, with similar blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay. Robotics mean operating time was 12 minutes longer.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

II.

PMID:
19701038
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk