Laparoscopic and robot-assisted hysterectomy for uterine cancer: a comparison of costs and complications


      Increasingly, robotic surgery is being used for total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lymph node dissection for uterine cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the costs and complications among women undergoing robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for uterine cancer.

      Study Design

      We carried out a cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between 2008 and 2012 on all women diagnosed with uterine cancer, classifying women as either laparoscopically or robotically treated, excluding laparotomies or vaginal approaches. Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the adjusted effect of surgical approach on complication rates.


      There were 10,347 women who underwent hysterectomies for uterine cancer either laparoscopically (39%) or robotically (61%). The rate of robotic surgery consistently increased over the 5 year period. Women undergoing robotic surgery had more comorbid conditions (diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, renal disease, obesity or morbid obesity, and pulmonary disease). In adjusted analyses, women undergoing robotic surgery were more likely to have a lymph node dissection (73.01% vs 66.04%; P < .0001) and an admission lasting <3 days (86.01% vs 82.5%; P < .0001) compared with those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The composite endpoint of any complication was similar between both cohorts (20.56% robotic vs 21.00% laparoscopy). In overall and subset analyses, robotic surgery was more costly, with median charges of $38,161.00 compared with $31,476.00 in those undergoing laparoscopic surgery (P < .0001).


      Despite the considerably greater burden of comorbidities in those undergoing robotic surgery compared with laparoscopy, the former have shorter hospital admissions, a greater rate of lymph node dissection, and similar postoperative morbidity and mortality, albeit at greater total cost.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Siegel R.
        • Naishadham D.
        • Jemal A.
        Cancer statistics, 2013.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 63: 11-30
      1. SEER cancer statistics factsheets: endometrial cancer. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD2014 (Available at:) (Accessed Oct. 28, 2014)
        • Barakat R.
        Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology, 6th ed.
        Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA2013: 1101
        • Creasman W.
        Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the endometrium.
        Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009; 105: 109
        • Prat J.
        FIGO staging for uterine sarcomas.
        Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009; 104: 177-178
        • Walker J.L.
        • Piedmonte M.R.
        • Spirtos N.M.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2.
        J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 5331-5336
        • Walker J.L.
        • Piedmonte M.R.
        • Spirtos N.M.
        • et al.
        Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study.
        J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 695-700
        • Frumovitz M.
        • Escobar P.
        • Ramirez P.T.
        Minimally invasive surgical approaches for patients with endometrial cancer.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 54: 226-234
        • Gallagher A.G.
        • Jordan-Black J.A.
        • O'Sullivan G.C.
        Prospective, randomized assessment of the acquisition, maintenance, and loss of laparoscopic skills.
        Ann Surg. 2012; 256: 387-393
        • Lenihan Jr., J.P.
        • Kovanda C.
        • Seshadri-Kreaden U.
        What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery?.
        J Minim Invas Gynecol. 2008; 15: 589-594
        • Yohannes P.
        • Rotariu P.
        • Pinto P.
        • Smith A.D.
        • Lee B.R.
        Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve?.
        Urology. 2002; 60: 39-45
        • Seamon L.G.
        • Fowler J.M.
        • Richardson D.L.
        • et al.
        A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 114: 162-167
        • Luciano A.A.
        • Luciano D.E.
        • Gabbert J.
        • Seshadri-Kreaden U.
        The impact of robotics on the mode of benign hysterectomy and clinical outcomes.
        Int J Med Robot. 2015; ([Epub ahead of print])
        • Tapper A.-M.
        • Hannola M.
        • Zeitlin R.
        • Isojärvi J.
        • Sintonen H.
        • Ikonen T.S.
        A systematic review and cost analysis of robot-assisted hysterectomy in malignant and benign conditions.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 177: 1-10
      2. HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Available at: Accessed Oct. 28, 2014.

        • Gaia G.
        • Holloway R.W.
        • Santoro L.
        • Ahmad S.
        • Di Silverio E.
        • Spinillo A.
        Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 1422-1431
        • Ghomi A.
        • Kramer C.
        • Askari R.
        • Chavan N.R.
        • Einarsson J.I.
        Trendelenburg position in gynecologic robotic-assisted surgery.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012; 19: 485-489
        • Badawy M.
        • Béïque F.
        • Al-Halal H.
        • et al.
        Anesthesia considerations for robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology.
        J Robot Surg. 2011; 5: 235-239
        • Aceto P.
        • Perilli V.
        • Modesti C.
        • Ciocchetti P.
        • Vitale F.
        • Sollazzi L.
        Airway management in obese patients.
        Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013; 9: 809-815
        • Parlow J.
        • Ahn R.
        • Milne B.
        Obesity is a risk factor for failure of “fast track” extubation following coronary artery bypass surgery.
        Can J Anesth. 2006; 53: 288-294
        • Pelosi P.
        • Croci M.
        • Ravagnan I.
        • et al.
        The effects of body mass on lung volumes, respiratory mechanics, and gas exchange during general anesthesia.
        Anesth Analg. 1998; 87: 654-660
        • Huschak G.
        • Busch T.
        • Kaisers U.X.
        Obesity in anesthesia and intensive care.
        Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013; 27: 247-260
        • Yu X.
        • Lum D.
        • Kiet T.K.
        • et al.
        Utilization of and charges for robotic versus laparoscopic versus open surgery for endometrial cancer.
        J Surg Oncol. 2013; 107: 653-658
        • Wright J.D.
        • Burke W.M.
        • Wilde E.T.
        • et al.
        Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 4215-4222
        • Leitao M.M.J.
        • Bartashnik A.
        • Wagner I.
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotically assisted laparoscopy for newly diagnosed uterine cancers.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1031-1037
        • Lau S.
        • Vaknin Z.
        • Ramana-Kumar A.V.
        • Halliday D.
        • Franco E.L.
        • Gotlieb W.H.
        Outcomes and cost comparisons after introducing a robotics program for endometrial cancer surgery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 119: 717-724