Obstetrics & Gynecology Email Alerts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Obstetrics & Gynecology 2007;109:1375-1380
© 2007 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rodgers, A. K.
Right arrow Articles by Falcone, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rodgers, A. K.
Right arrow Articles by Falcone, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Endoscopic surgery
Right arrow Gynecologic surgery
Right arrow Reproductive endocrinology

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Tubal Anastomosis by Robotic Compared With Outpatient Minilaparotomy

Allison K. Rodgers, MD1, Jeffrey M. Goldberg, MD1, Jeffrey P. Hammel, MS2 and Tommaso Falcone, MD1

From the Departments of 1Obstetrics and Gynecology and 2Biostatistics, the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

OBJECTIVE: To compare tubal anastomosis by robotic system compared with outpatient minilaparotomy.

METHODS: In this retrospective case–control study, women were identified by current procedural terminology code for tubal anastomosis. We included all cases of tubal anastomosis for reversal of a prior tubal ligation by either outpatient minilaparotomy or robotic system technique. Cases performed by laparoscopy without aid of the robot were excluded. Comparisons were based on Fisher's exact, {chi}2, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

RESULTS: There were 26 cases of tubal anastomosis performed with the robot and 41 cases performed by outpatient minilaparotomy. The two groups were comparable in age, body mass index, and parity. Anesthesia time for the robotic technique (median with interquartile range) was 283 (267–290) minutes compared with 205 (170–230) minutes with outpatient minilaparotomy (P<.001). Surgical times for the robot and minilaparotomy were 229 (205–252) minutes and 181 (154–202) minutes respectively (P=.001). Hospitalization times, pregnancy, and ectopic pregnancy rates were not significantly different. The robotic technique was more costly. The median difference in costs of the procedures was $1,446 (95% confidence interval $1,112–1,812) (P<.001). The time to return to work was significantly shorter in the robotic system group by approximately 1 week (P=.013).

CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery for tubal anastomosis was successfully accomplished without conversion to laparotomy. The robotic technique for tubal anastomosis required significantly prolonged surgical and anesthesia times over outpatient minilaparotomy (P≤.001). Costs were higher with the robotic technique. Return to normal activity was shorter with the robotic technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.