Single-site Versus Multiport Robotic Hysterectomy in Benign Gynecologic Diseases: A Retrospective Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes and Cost Analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle


OBJECTIVE: To compare the surgical outcomes and costs of robotic-assisted hysterectomy with the single-site (RSSH) or multiport approach (RH).

DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database (Canadian Task Force classification II1).

SETTING: A university hospital.

PATIENTS: Consecutive women who underwent robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for the treatment of benign gynecologic diseases.

INTERVENTIONS: Data on surgical approach, surgical outcomes, and costs were collected in a prospective database and retrospectively analyzed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The total operative time, console time, docking time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, and surgical complications rate were compared between the 2 study groups. Cost analysis was performed. One hundred four patients underwent total robotic-assisted hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (45 RSSH and 59 RH). There was no significant difference in the indications for surgery and in the characteristics of the patients between the 2 study groups. There was no significant difference between the single-site and multiport approach in console time, surgical complication rate, conversion rate, and postoperative pain. The docking time was lower in the RH group (p = .0001). The estimated blood loss and length of hospitalization were lower in the RSSH group (p = .0008 and p = .009, respectively). The cost analysis showed significant differences in favor of RSSH.

CONCLUSION: RSSH should be preferred to RH when hysterectomy is performed for benign disease because it could be at least as equally effective and safe with a potential cost reduction. However, because of the high cost and absence of clear advantages, the robotic approach should be considered only for selected patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)603-9
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - Feb 24 2016



  • Journal Article

Cite this