Surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted single-site hysterectomy compared to multi-port hysterectomy

Background: Data regarding the use of single-site robotic surgery in gynecology remains limited, but the approach is anecdotally felt to be beneficial to patients. This study aims to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted single-site hysterectomy (SSH) and multi-port hysterectomy (MPH). Methods: Data were obtained via retrospective chart review of eligible patients from a single academic health care system who underwent surgery between October 2013–June 2022. During this time, 127 SSH and 445 MPH were performed. Results: 78% of SSH patients had a normal or overweight body mass index (BMI) compared to 49% of MPH patients (p < 0.001). 28% of SSH patients had a preoperative cancer diagnosis compared to 58% of MPH patients (p < 0.001). There were no differences in average number of prior abdominal surgeries (p = 0.838). Median operative time was 118 minutes for SSH compared to 162 minutes for MPH (p < 0.001). 23% of SSH patients were discharged on the day of surgery compared to 8% of MPH patients (p < 0.001). The plurality (47%) of SSH patients had blood loss of <50 mL compared to 50–100 mL for the plurality (36%) of MPH patients (p < 0.001). 7% of patients undergoing MPH experienced major complications compared to 2% of patients undergoing SSH (p = 0.025). Propensity score matched results using a 1:1 model were consistent with the overall analysis and prior findings, demonstrating statistically significant differences in median operative times, blood loss and lengths of postoperative stay between SSH and MPH patients. Conclusions: SSH has overall good outcomes, with this study demonstrating decreased operative times, decreased blood loss, lower rates of major complications and shorter lengths of postoperative stay when compared to MPH. SSH may be an alternate surgical modality with utility in risk-reducing, precancerous, or early-stage cancer in gynecologic patients.

Robotic-assisted surgery; Single site surgery; Multi site surgery; Hysterectomy

[1] Mattingly AS, Chen MM, Divi V, Holsinger FC, Saraswathula A. Minimally invasive surgery in the United States, 2022: understanding its value using new datasets. The Journal of Surgical Research. 2023; 281: 33–36.

[2] Bingmer K, Ofshteyn A, Stein SL, Marks JM, Steinhagen E. Decline of open surgical experience for general surgery residents. Surgical Endoscopy. 2020; 34: 967–972.

[3] Uccella S, Franchi MP, Cianci S, Zorzato PC, Bertoli F, Alletti SG, et al. Laparotomy vs. minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer recurrence: a systematic review. Gland Surgery. 2020; 9: 1130–1139.

[4] Committee Opinion No 701: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017; 129: e155–e159.

[5] Pickett CM, Seeratan DD, Mol BWJ, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Bonestroo T, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2023; 8: CD003677.

[6] Advincula AP, Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2009; 16: 291–301.

[7] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Gynecologic Practice, The Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Robot-assisted surgery for noncancerous gynecologic conditions: ACOG COMMITTEE OPINION, Number 810. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020; 136: e22–e30.

[8] Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K. Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2015; 22: 234–238.

[9] Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu Y, Neugut AI, et al. Robotically assisted vs. laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013; 309: 689–698.

[10] Ramirez PT, Adams S, Boggess JF, Burke WM, Frumovitz MM, Gardner GJ, et al. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: a society of gynecologic oncology consensus statement. Gynecologic Oncology. 2012; 124: 180–184.

[11] Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu D, Dowswell T, Song H, Wang L, et al. Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2019; 4: CD011422.

[12] Fader AN, Levinson KL, Gunderson CC, Winder AD, Escobar PF. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynaecology: a new frontier in minimally invasive surgery. Journal of Minimal Access Surgery. 2011; 7: 71–77.

[13] Iavazzo C, Minis EE, Gkegkes ID. Single-site port robotic-assisted hysterectomy: an update. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2018; 12: 201–213.

[14] Jayakumaran J, Wiercinski K, Buffington C, Caceres A. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site benign gynecologic surgery: a single-center experience. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2018; 12: 447–454.

[15] Capozzi VA, Armano G, Rosati A, Tropea A, Biondi A. The robotic single-port platform for gynecologic surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Updates in Surgery. 2021; 73: 1155–1167.

[16] Arcieri M, Romeo P, Vizzielli G, Restaino S, Driul L, Stabile G, et al. Robotic Single-Port da Vinci Surgical System (SP1098) in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review of literature. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2023; 50: 158.

[17] Huang Y, Duan K, Koythong T, Patil NM, Fan D, Liu J, et al. Application of robotic single-site surgery with optional additional port for endometriosis: a single institution’s experience. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2022; 16: 127–135.

[18] Lee JH, Yoo HK, Park SY, Moon HS. Robotic single-port myomectomy using the da Vinci SP surgical system: a pilot study. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2022; 48: 200–206.

[19] Bae SU, Jegon WK, Baek SK. Single plus one-port robotic surgery using the da Vinci Single-Site Platform versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer. Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques. 2022; 17: 179–187.

[20] Narducci F, Bogart E, Hebert T, Gauthier T, Collinet P, Classe JM, et al. Severe perioperative morbidity after robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology: results of the randomized ROBOGYN-1004 trial. Gynecologic Oncology. 2020; 158: 382–389.

[21] Hotton J, Bogart E, Le Deley MC, Lambaudie E, Narducci F, Marchal F. Ergonomic assessment of the surgeon’s physical workload during robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopy in a french multicenter randomized trial (ROBOGYN-1004 Trial). Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2023; 30: 916–923.

[22] Querleu D, Scambia G, Rychlik A. Reappraisal of robotic assistance in gynecologic oncology: the lessons of ROBOGYN-1004. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2023; 30: 672–674.