Comparative Effectiveness of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer

Use of robotics in oncologic surgery is increasing; however, reports of safety and efficacy are from highly experienced surgeons and centers. We performed a population-based analysis to compare laparoscopic hysterectomy and robotic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. The Perspective database was used to identify women who underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer from 2008 to 2010. Morbidity, mortality, and cost were evaluated using multivariable logistic and linear regression models. We identified 2,464 women, including 1,027 (41.7%) who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy and 1,437 (58.3%) who underwent robotic hysterectomy. Women treated at larger hospitals, nonteaching hospitals, and centers outside of the northeast were more likely to undergo a robotic hysterectomy procedure, whereas black women, those without insurance, and women in rural areas were less likely to undergo a robotic hysterectomy procedure (P < .05 for all). The overall complication rate was 9.8% for laparoscopic hysterectomy versus 8.1% for robotic hysterectomy (P = .13). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for any morbidity for robotic hysterectomy was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.03). After adjusting for patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics, there were no significant differences in the rates of intraoperative complications (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.08), surgical site complications (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.73), medical complications (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.01), or prolonged hospitalization (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.14) between the procedures. The mean cost for robotic hysterectomy was $10,618 versus $8,996 for laparoscopic hysterectomy (P < .001). In a multivariable model, robotic hysterectomy was significantly more costly ($1,291; 95% CI, $985 to $1,597). Despite claims of decreased complications with robotic hysterectomy, we found similar morbidity but increased cost compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy. Comparative long-term efficacy data are needed to justify its widespread use.