Kathryn Friedman

Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus da Vinci robotic hysterectomy: is using the robot beneficial?

Objective To compare the outcomes of total laparoscopic to robotic approach for hysterectomy and all indicated procedures after controlling for surgeon and other confounding factors. Methods Retrospective chart review of all consecutive cases of total laparoscopic and da Vinci robotic hysterectomies between August 2007 and July 2009 by two gynecologic oncology surgeons. Our primary outcome measure was operative procedure time. Secondary measures included complications, conversion to laparotomy, estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay. A mixed model with a random intercept was applied to control for surgeon and other confounders. Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square and Fishers exact tests were used for the statistical analysis. Results The 124 patients included in the study consisted of 77 total laparoscopic hysterectomies and 47 robotic hysterectomies. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics, indications for surgery and additional procedures performed. The difference between the mean operative procedure time for the total laparoscopic hysterectomy group (111.4 minutes) and the robotic hysterectomy group (150.8 minutes) was statistically significant (p=0.0001) despite the fact that the specimens obtained in the total laparoscopic hysterectomy group were significantly larger (125 g vs. 94 g, p=0.002). The robotic hysterectomy group had statistically less estimated blood loss than the total laparoscopic hysterectomy group (131.5 mL vs. 207.7 mL, p=0.0105) however no patients required a blood transfusion in either group. Both groups had a comparable rate of conversion to laparotomy, intraoperative complications, and length of hospital stay. Conclusion Total laparoscopic hysterectomy can be performed safely and in less operative time compared to robotic hysterectomy when performed by trained surgeons.

Randomized controlled double-blind trial of transversus abdominis plane block versus trocar site infiltration in gynecologic laparoscopy

OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to determine whether transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block reduces postoperative pain when compared with trocar site infiltration of bupivacaine in gynecological laparoscopy. STUDY DESIGN This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial using patients as their own controls. Women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy using a 4-port symmetrical technique were randomly assigned to right- or left-sided TAP block using 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with epinephrine. Two cohorts of patients were studied. Cohort 1 consisted of anesthesiologist-administered ultrasound-guided TAP block. Cohort 2 consisted of surgeon-administered laparoscopic-guided TAP block. In both cohorts, contralateral port sites were infiltrated with an equal amount of bupivacaine in divided doses. All patients received intraoperative acetaminophen and ketorolac. Postoperative abdominal pain was assessed at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 18, 24, and 48 hours on the block and contralateral sides, before and after palpation, using the 10 point visual analog scale. A 2 point difference in the reported pain scores was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients were eligible for statistical analysis: 45 and 43 patients in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. In both cohorts, most patients reported equal pain on the block side and local side. In cohort 1, there was a statistically significant difference in mean reported pain scores at 2 hours and across time favoring the ultrasound-guided block; however, this did not reach clinical significance. There was no statistically significant difference found at all other time points or when pain scores were objectively assessed after palpation of the incisions. When comparing laparoscopic-guided block with local infiltration, there was no statistically significant difference in reported mean pain scores at all time points or after palpation. CONCLUSION As part of this multimodal analgesic regimen, neither block method provided a significant clinical benefit compared with trocar site bupivacaine infiltration.