Robotically Assisted Hysterectomy versus Vaginal Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Prospective Study

Robotic-assisted benign hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic, vaginal, and open surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The potential benefits and limitations of benign hysterectomy surgical approaches are still debated. We aimed at evaluating any differences with a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were last searched on 6/2/2021 to identify English randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort and retrospective independent database studies published between Jan 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2020 reporting perioperative outcomes following robotic hysterectomy versus laparoscopic, open, or vaginal approach (PROSPERO #CRD42022352718). Twenty-four articles were included that reported on 110,306 robotic, 262,715 laparoscopic, 189,237 vaginal, and 554,407 open patients. The robotic approach was associated with a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.00001), less blood loss (p = 0.009), and fewer complications (OR: 0.42 [0.27, 0.66], p = 0.0001) when compared to the open approach. The main benefit compared to the laparoscopic and vaginal approaches was a shorter hospital (R/L WMD: - 0.144 [- 0.21, - 0.08], p < 0.0001; R/V WMD: - 0.39 [- 0.70, - 0.08], p = 0.01). Other benefits seen were sensitive to the inclusion of database studies. Study type differences in outcomes, a lack of RCTs for robotic vs. open comparisons, learning curve issues, and limited robotic vs. vaginal publications are limitations. While the robotic approach was mainly comparable to the laparoscopic approach, this meta-analysis confirms the classic benefits of minimally invasive surgery when comparing robotic hysterectomy to open surgery. We also reported the advantages of robotic surgery over vaginal surgery in a patient population with a higher incidence of large uterus and prior surgery.

Robotic Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: What Have We Learned from a Decade?

Background and Objectives

Robotic surgery data need a setback on many years of practice with high-volume surgeons to evaluate its real value. Our main objective was to study the impact of a decade of robotic surgery on minimally-invasive hysterectomies for benign indications. Our secondary objectives were to evaluate our results for high-volume surgeons and complex cases.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed medical records at Foch Hospital, from 2010 to 2019, to evaluate the outcomes of robotic hysterectomies for benign disease. We compared the trends of benign hysterectomies done by laparoscopy and laparotomy during this period. We analyzed the proficiency group (≥ 75 cases per surgeon) and complex cases including obese patients and large uteri (>250 g).

Results

495 hysterectomies were performed by robotic, 275 by laparotomy, and 130 by laparoscopy. The laparotomy approach decreased from 62% to 29%, whereas the robotic approach increased from 26% to 61%. The operating room (OR) time decreased in the proficiency group (157.3 ± 43.32 versus 178.6 ± 48.05, P = 0.005); whereas the uterine weight was higher (194.6 ± 158.6 versus 161.3 ± 139.4, P = 0.04). Lower EBL and shorter OR time were seen with uteri ≤ 250 g subgroup (64.24 ± 110.2 ml versus 116.63 ± 146.98 ml, P = 0.0004) (169.62 ± 47.50 min versus 192.44 ± 45.82 min, P = 0.0001). The estimated blood loss (EBL) was less in the BMI ≤ 30 subgroup (68.83 ± 119.24 ml versus 124.53 ± 186.14 ml, P = 0.0005).

Conclusion

A shift was observed between the laparotomy and robotic approaches. High-volume surgeons were more efficient and showed a decrease in OR time after 75 cases despite an increase in uterine weight.

Overcoming barriers to vaginal hysterectomy: An analysis of perioperative outcomes

Objective

To determine perioperative outcome differences in patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy based on uterine weight, vaginal delivery, and menopausal state.

Material and Methods

Retrospective chart review of 452 patients who underwent vaginal hysterectomy performed by a single surgeon. Patients’ age, vaginal delivery, uterine weight, previous pelvic surgery, previous cesarean delivery, removal of ovaries were compared, as well as estimated blood loss (EBL), operating room time (ORT), length of stay, intraoperative complications and postoperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used, and all data were analyzed at the level of p<0.05 statistical significance using SAS system software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC), version 9.3.

Results

The mean age was 57.13±11.52 years and the median vaginal delivery was 2. The uterine weight range was 16.6-1174.5 g (mean 169.79±183.94 g). The incidences of blood transfusion and bladder injury were 3.03% and 0.66%, respectively. Factors shown to be associated with longer ORT included greater uterine weight, removal of ovaries, posterior repair, tension-free vaginal tape sling, prolapse, and EBL >500 mL (p<0.001). The factors associated with EBL >500 mL were greater uterine weight (p=0.001), uterine myomas (p=0.016) and premenopausal state (p=0.014). The factors associated with conversion to laparotomy were greater uterine weight (p<0.001) and premenopausal state (p<0.001).

Conclusion

Vaginal hysterectomy is a safe and feasible approach for patients desiring hysterectomy regardless of uterine weight and vaginal delivery.

Validation of an educational simulation model for vaginal hysterectomy training: a pilot study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The Miya Model ™ (Miyazaki Enterprises, Winston-Salem, NC, USA) was designed as a realistic vaginal surgery simulation model. Our aim was to describe this model and present pilot data on validity and reliability of the model as an assessment tool of vaginal hysterectomy skills.

METHODS

We video recorded ten obstetrics and gynecology residents (novice group) and ten practicing gynecologists (expert group) performing vaginal hysterectomy using the Miya model. Blood loss and time taken to complete the procedure were documented. Participants evaluated the model using a postsimulation survey. In addition, two experienced gynecologic surgeons independently evaluated video recordings of each participant's performance using two previously validated global rating scales: Reznick's Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) and Vaginal Surgical Skills Index (VSSI).

RESULTS

Most participants (80% of novice and 100% of expert group) rated the model as effective or highly effective for vaginal hysterectomy training and assessment. Median time to procedure completion was significantly higher in the novice group, whereas median estimated blood loss was no different between groups. No significant differences were observed in the composite median OSATS or VSSI scores between groups. The interrater reliability indices for subscales and composite scores of the OSATS and VSSI were high and ranged from 0.79 to 0.90 and 0.77 to 0.93, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

With further study, the Miya Model may be a useful tool for teaching and assessing vaginal surgical skills.

Pedagogic Approach in the Surgical Learning: The First Period of "Assistant Surgeon" May Improve the Learning Curve for Laparoscopic Robotic-Assisted Hysterectomy

Background

Hysterectomy is the most frequent surgery done with robotic assistance in the world and has been widely studied since its emergence. The surgical outcomes of the robotic hysterectomy are similar to those obtained with other minimally invasive hysterectomy techniques (laparoscopic and vaginal) and appear as a promising surgical technique in gynecology surgery. The aim of this study was to observe the learning curve of robot-assisted hysterectomy in a French surgical center, and was to evaluate the impact of the surgical mentoring.

Methods

We retrospectively collected the data from the files of the robot-assisted hysterectomies with the Da Vinci^® Surgical System performed between March 2010 and June 2014 at the Foch hospital in Suresnes (France). We first studied the operative time according to the number of cases, independently of the surgeon to determine two periods: the initial learning phase (Phase 1) and the control of surgical skills phase (Phase 2). The phase was defined by mastering the basic surgical tasks. Secondarily, we compared these two periods for operative time, blood losses, body mass index (BMI), days of hospitalizations, and uterine weight. We, finally, studied the difference of the learning curve between an experimented surgeon (S1) who practiced first the robot-assisted hysterectomies and a less experimented surgeon (S2) who first assisted S1 and then operated on his own patients.

Results

A total of 154 robot-assisted hysterectomies were analyzed. Twenty procedures were necessary to access to the control of surgical skills phase. There was a significant decrease of the operative time between the learning phase (156.8 min) compared to the control of surgical skills phase (125.8 min, p = 0.003). No difference between these two periods for blood losses, BMI, days of hospitalizations and uterine weight was demonstrated. The learning curve of S1 showed 20 procedures to master the robot-assisted hysterectomies with a significant decrease of the operative time, while the learning curve of S2 showed no improvement in operative time with respect to case number.

Conclusion

Twenty robot-assisted hysterectomies are necessary to achieve control of surgical skills. The companionship to learn robotic surgery seems also promising, by improving the learning phase for this surgical technique.