Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34981444›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2022

Minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications-surgical volume matters: a retrospective cohort study comparing complications of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies.

Michael G Baracy, Marco Martinez, Karen Hagglund, Fareeza Afzal, Sanjana Kulkarni, Logan Corey, Muhammad Faisal Aslam

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michael G BaracyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ascension St. John Hospital, 22101 Moross Rd, Detroit, MI, 48236, USA. Michael.Baracy@ascension.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2437-3541
Marco MartinezDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ascension St. John Hospital, 22101 Moross Rd, Detroit, MI, 48236, USA.
Karen HagglundDepartment of Biomedical Investigations and Research, Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, MI, 48236, USA.
Fareeza AfzalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ascension St. John Hospital, 22101 Moross Rd, Detroit, MI, 48236, USA.
Sanjana KulkarniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ascension St. John Hospital, 22101 Moross Rd, Detroit, MI, 48236, USA.
Logan CoreyDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA.
Muhammad Faisal AslamDepartment of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, MI, 48236, USA.
St. John Hospital & Medical Center · USAscension · USWayne State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of perioperative complications in robotic-assisted hysterectomies performed by high-volume robotic surgeons compared to conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies performed by all gynecologic surgeons. This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single-center community based hospital and medical center. A total of 332 patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign indications were included in this study. Half of these patients (n = 166) underwent conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy and the other half underwent a robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. The main outcome measures included composite complication rate, estimated blood loss (EBL), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Median (IQR) EBL was significantly lower for robotic hysterectomy [22.5 (30) mL] compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy [100 (150) mL, p < 0.0001]. LOS was significantly shorter for robotic hysterectomy (1.0 ± 0.2 day) compared to laparoscopic hysterectomy (1.2 ± 0.7 days, p = 0.04). Despite averaging 3.0 (IQR 1.0) concomitant procedures compared to 0 (IQR 1.0) for the conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies, the incidence of any type of complication was lower in the robotic hysterectomy group (2 vs. 6%, p = 0.05). Finally, in a logistic regression model controlling for multiple confounders, robotic-assisted hysterectomy was less likely to result in a perioperative complication compared to traditional laparoscopic hysterectomy [odds ratio (95% CI) = 0.2 (0.1, 0.90), p = 0.04]. In conclusion, robotic-assisted hysterectomy may reduce complications compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy when performed by high volume surgeons, especially in the setting of other concomitant gynecologic surgeries.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansHysterectomyPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesHigh volume surgeonLaparoscopyMinimally invasive gynecologyRobotic-assisted hysterectomySurgical Complications

Identifiers

PMID34981444
OpenAlexW4205921860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.