Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications


      Despite a lack of evidence showing improved clinical outcomes with robotic-assisted hysterectomy over other minimally invasive routes for benign indications, this route has increased in popularity over the last decade.


      We sought to compare clinical outcomes and estimated cost of robotic-assisted vs other routes of minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications.

      Study Design

      A statewide database was used to analyze utilization and outcomes of minimally invasive hysterectomy performed for benign indications from Jan. 1, 2013, through July 1, 2014. A 1-to-1 propensity score-match analysis was performed between women who had a hysterectomy with robotic assistance vs other minimally invasive routes (laparoscopic and vaginal, with or without laparoscopy). Perioperative outcomes, intraoperative bowel and bladder injury, 30-day postoperative complications, readmissions, and reoperations were compared. Cost estimates of hysterectomy routes, surgical site infection, and postoperative blood transfusion were derived from published data.


      In all, 8313 hysterectomy cases were identified: 4527 performed using robotic assistance and 3786 performed using other minimally invasive routes. A total of 1338 women from each group were successfully matched using propensity score matching. Robotic-assisted hysterectomies had lower estimated blood loss (94.2 ± 124.3 vs 175.3 ± 198.9 mL, P < .001), longer surgical time (2.3 ± 1.0 vs 2.0 ± 1.0 hours, P < .001), larger specimen weights (178.9 ± 186.3 vs 160.5 ± 190 g, P = .007), and shorter length of stay (14.1% [189] vs 21.9% [293] ≥2 days, P < .001). Overall, the rate of any postoperative complication was lower with the robotic-assisted route (3.5% [47] vs 5.6% [75], P = .01) and driven by lower rates of superficial surgical site infection (0.07% [1] vs 0.7% [9], P = .01) and blood transfusion (0.8% [11] vs 1.9% [25], P = .02). Major postoperative complications, intraoperative bowel and bladder injury, readmissions, and reoperations were similar between groups. Using hospital cost estimates of hysterectomy routes and considering the incremental costs associated with surgical site infections and blood transfusions, nonrobotic minimally invasive routes had an average net savings of $3269 per case, or 24% lower cost, compared to robotic-assisted hysterectomy ($10,160 vs $13,429).


      Robotic-assisted laparoscopy does not decrease major morbidity following hysterectomy for benign indications when compared to other minimally invasive routes. While superficial surgical site infection and blood transfusion rates were statistically lower in the robotic-assisted group, in the absence of substantial reductions in clinically and financially burdensome complications, it will be challenging to find a scenario in which robotic-assisted hysterectomy is clinically superior and cost-effective.

      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


        • Wu J.M.
        • Wechter M.E.
        • Geller E.J.
        • Nguyen T.V.
        • Visco A.G.
        Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110: 1091-1095
        • Desai V.B.
        • Xu X.
        An update on inpatient hysterectomy routes in the United States.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213: 742-743
        • Liu H.
        • Lawrie T.A.
        • Lu D.
        • Song H.
        • Wang L.
        • Shi G.
        Robot-assisted surgery in gynecology.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 12: CD011422
        • Rosero E.B.
        • Kho K.A.
        • Joshi G.P.
        • Giesecke M.
        • Schaffer J.I.
        Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 778-786
        • Wright J.D.
        • Ananth C.V.
        • Lewin S.N.
        • et al.
        Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease.
        JAMA. 2013; 309: 689-698
        • Sarlos D.
        • Kots L.
        • Stevanovic N.
        • von Felten S.
        • Schar G.
        Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120: 604-611
        • Albright B.B.
        • Witte T.
        • Tofte A.N.
        • et al.
        Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23: 18-27
        • Wright J.D.
        • Ananth C.V.
        • Tergas A.I.
        • et al.
        An economic analysis of robotically assisted hysterectomy.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1038-1048
        • Tandogdu Z.
        • Vale L.
        • Fraser C.
        • Ramsay C.
        A systematic review of economic evaluations of the use of robotic assisted laparoscopy in surgery compared with open or laparoscopic surgery.
        Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015; 13: 457-467
        • Barbash G.I.
        • Glied S.A.
        New technology and health care costs–the case of robot-assisted surgery.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 701-704
        • Dayaratna S.
        • Goldberg J.
        • Harrington C.
        • Leiby B.E.
        • McNeil J.M.
        Hospital costs of total vaginal hysterectomy compared with other minimally invasive hysterectomy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210: 120.e1-120.e6
        • Tapper A.M.
        • Hannola M.
        • Zeitlin R.
        • Isojarvi 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
        • ACOG
        Choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Committee opinion no. 444.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114: 1156-1158
        • Orady M.
        • Hrynewych A.
        • Nawfal A.K.
        • Wegienka G.
        Comparison of robotic-assisted hysterectomy to other minimally invasive approaches.
        JSLS. 2012; 16: 542-548
        • Campbell Jr., D.A.
        • Kubus J.J.
        • Henke P.K.
        • Hutton M.
        • Englesbe M.J.
        The Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative: a legacy of Shukri Khuri.
        Am J Surg. 2009; 198: S49-S55
        • Owens W.D.
        • Felts J.A.
        • Spitznagel Jr., E.L.
        ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings.
        Anesthesiology. 1978; 49: 239-243
        • Charlson M.
        • Szatrowski T.P.
        • Peterson J.
        • Gold J.
        Validation of a combined comorbidity index.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1994; 47: 1245-1251
        • Austin P.C.
        An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies.
        Multivariate Behav Res. 2011; 46: 399-424
        • Roy S.
        • Patkar A.
        • Daskiran M.
        • Levine R.
        • Hinoul P.
        • Nigam S.
        Clinical and economic burden of surgical site infection in hysterectomy.
        Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2014; 15: 266-273
        • Shander A.
        • Hofmann A.
        • Ozawa S.
        • Theusinger O.M.
        • Gombotz H.
        • Spahn D.R.
        Activity-based costs of blood transfusions in surgical patients at four hospitals.
        Transfusion. 2010; 50: 753-765
        • Woelk J.L.
        • Casiano E.R.
        • Weaver A.L.
        • Gostout B.S.
        • Trabuco E.C.
        • Gebhart J.B.
        The learning curve of robotic hysterectomy.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 87-95