Rate of Urologic Injury with Robotic Hysterectomy
Petersen SS, Doe S, Rubinfeld I, Davydova Y, Buekers T, and Sangha R. Rate of urologic injury with robotic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018
J Minim Invasive Gynecol
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate rates of urologic injury in patients who underwent robotic hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic, vaginal, and open hysterectomy.
DESIGN: A retrospective analysis (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).
SETTING: Henry Ford Health System, 2013 to 2016.
PATIENTS: Women who underwent robotic, vaginal, laparoscopic, and open abdominal hysterectomy.
INTERVENTIONS: Robotic hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy, total laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, vaginal hysterectomy, and abdominal hysterectomy.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: To identify patients with urologic injury, a departmental database for quality improvement was searched for reported urologic injuries. In addition, patients who had urology consultation within 90 days of hysterectomy were screened for injury. A total of 3114 hysterectomies were identified by retrospective chart review. One thousand eighty-eight robotic, 782 laparoscopic, 304 vaginal, and 940 abdominal hysterectomies were analyzed for urologic complications. A total of 27 injuries were confirmed (7 during laparoscopic hysterectomy, 10 during robotic hysterectomy, 1 during vaginal hysterectomy, and 9 during abdominal hysterectomy). The overall rate of urologic injury was 0.87% with a 0.55% risk of bladder injury and a 0.32% risk of injury to the ureter. When the route of hysterectomy was taken into account, the risk of urologic injury was 0.92% for robotic hysterectomy, 0.90% for laparoscopic hysterectomy, 0.33% for vaginal hysterectomy, and 0.96% for open hysterectomy. The mean body mass index (BMI) for all patients was 32.7 kg/m
CONCLUSION: Rates of urologic injury with robotic hysterectomy are similar to those of laparoscopic hysterectomy in our population. BMI was not significantly different in patients who had urologic injuries. Surgeon volume was not associated with risk for urologic injury.
ePub ahead of print