Robot-Assisted Vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (RvNOTES) With Total Hysterectomy for Management of Stage IV Endometriosis With/Without Complete Cul-de-Sac Obliteration: 23-Case Pilot Feasibility Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To show feasibility and short-term outcomes of robot-assisted vaginal NOTES (RvNOTES) for the treatment of stage IV endometriosis during total hysterectomy with/without complete cul-de-sac obliteration. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Single academic tertiary care hospital in Houston, Texas, USA. PATIENTS: Twenty-three adult women with stage IV endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS: RvNOTES with total hysterectomy for excision of severe endometriosis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were assessed for various metrics including total operative time, robot dock time, robot console time, hysterectomy time, estimated blood loss, perioperative pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and complications. The mean total operative time was 224.3 minutes. The study also found that patients with complete cul-de-sac obliteration had significantly longer operative times and higher estimated blood loss compared to those with partial or no obliteration. Postoperative VAS pain scores showed a significant reduction over a 6-week period. Complications included one case of complete ureteral transection, pelvic hematoma with infection, vaginal abscess, urinary tract infection, and pneumonia. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that RvNOTES may be a feasible surgical approach in expert hands for treating stage IV endometriosis, even in cases with complete obliteration of the cul-de-sac.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy vs conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare robotic-assisted laparoscopy with conventional laparoscopy for treatment of advanced stage endometriosis insofar as operative time, estimated blood loss, complication rate, and length of hospital stay. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II2). All procedures were performed by one surgeon between January 2004 and July 2012. Data was collected via chart review. SETTING: Tertiary referral center for treatment of endometriosis. PATIENTS: Four hundred twenty women with advanced endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS: Fertility-sparing surgery to treat advanced endometriosis, either via conventional or robotic-assisted laparoscopy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patient demographic data, operative time, estimated blood loss, complication rate, and length of hospital stay were compared between the 2 groups. Two hundred seventy-three patients underwent conventional laparoscopy and 147 patients underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopy for fertility-sparing treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. Patients in both groups had similar characteristics insofar as age, body mass index, and previous abdominal surgeries. There were no significant differences in blood loss or complication rate between the 2 groups. Mean operative time in the conventional laparoscopy group was 135 minutes (range, 115-156 minutes), and in the robotic-assisted laparoscopy group was 196 minutes (range, 185-209 minutes), with a mean difference in operative time of 61 minutes (p < .001). Length of hospital stay was also significantly increased in the robotic-assisted laparoscopy group. Most patients who underwent conventional laparoscopy were discharged to home on the day of surgery. Of 273 patients in the conventional laparoscopy group, only 63 remained in the hospital overnight, and all 147 patients in the robotic-assisted laparoscopy group were discharged on postoperative day 1. CONCLUSION: Conventional laparoscopy and robotic-assisted laparoscopy are excellent methods for treatment of advanced stages of endometriosis. However, use of the robotic platform may increase operative time and might also be associated with longer hospital stay.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy surgery for advanced-stage endometriosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To determine perioperative outcome differences in patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for advanced-stage endometriosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study at a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery center at 2 academically affiliated, urban, nonprofit hospitals included all patients treated by either robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic surgery for stage III or IV endometriosis (American Society for Reproductive Medicine criteria) between July 2009 and October 2012 by 1 surgeon experienced in both techniques. The main outcome measures were extent of surgery, estimated blood loss, operating room time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay, with medians for continuous measures and distributions for categorical measures, stratified by body mass index values. Robotically assisted laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy were then compared by use of the Wilcoxon rank sum, χ(2), or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. RESULTS: Among 86 conventional laparoscopic and 32 robotically assisted cases, the latter had a higher body mass index (27.36 kg/m(2) [range, 23.90-34.09 kg/m(2)] versus 24.53 kg/m(2) [range, 22.27-26.96 kg/m(2)]; P < .0079) and operating room time (250.50 minutes [range, 176-328.50 minutes] versus 173.50 minutes [range, 123-237 minutes]; P < .0005) than did conventional laparoscopy patients. After body mass index stratification, obese patients varied in operating room time (282.5 minutes [range, 224-342 minutes] for robotic-assisted laparoscopy versus 174 minutes [range, 130-270 minutes] for conventional laparoscopy; P < .05). No other significant differences were noted between the robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopy groups. CONCLUSION: Despite a higher operating room time, robotic-assisted laparoscopy appears to be a safe minimally invasive approach for patients, with all other perioperative outcomes, including intraoperative and postoperative complications, comparable with those in patients undergoing conventional laparoscopy.