ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022
Robotic hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy: is it still more costly to perform?
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Emerging multi-port soft tissue robotic systems: a systematic review of clinical outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Improving efficiency in robotic-assisted surgery: a practical guide for surgeons.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- Examining the changes in women's lives after the hysterectomy operation: Experiences of women from Turkey.Archives of women's mental health · 2024Article
- Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynaecology: An Evolving Assistive Technology.Surgical innovation · 2024Review
- Identifying key predictors for uterine manipulator use in robotic simple hysterectomy: a retrospective cohort analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Why pay more for robot in esophageal cancer surgery?Updates in surgery · 2023Review
- Risk Assessment Model for Complications in Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Robotic versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy of Large Uterus with Gynecologic Benign Disease.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To establish the economic value of simple robotic hysterectomy vs laparoscopic hysterectomy and assess the impact of surgeon's experience. Retrospective cohort study. University-affiliated US regional healthcare system. Reproductive and post-menopausal women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications. Robotic or laparoscopic hysterectomy. Between January 2018 and December 2019, a total of 985 simple laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomies were performed by 47 different gynecologists. Overall, the mean payment, direct cost, and profit were comparable (p value > 0.05) among simple robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy. However, the mean operative time was significantly shorter for robotic hysterectomy compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy (106 min vs 127 min, respectively, p < 0.05). Operative time decreased as a surgeon's annual robotic case volume increased. Per-minute profitability of robotic hysterectomy increased significantly when a surgeon performed greater than 45 cases annually (p = 0.04). This effect became most pronounced when a surgeon performed 60 or more cases per year (p = 0.01). Simple robotic hysterectomy has shorter operative time compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy, with direct costs being similar. Robotic hysterectomy has higher per-minute profit compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy when a surgeon performs > 45 cases per year.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34232449What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.