Table 2: Comparative observational studies evaluating the da vinci robotic system (DRS) versus open surgery (OS) or laparoscopy (LSC) to perform uterine cancer staging procedures.

SurgeryNDRS versus OSDRS versus LSCControlSurgeonOR time (min.)EBL (mL)Hospital stay (days)Lymph node countConversionsBld TxIntraoperative complicationsPostoperative complications

Uterine Cancer Staging
Veljovich et al. [83]
2006-2007
Swedish Medical CenterSeattle, WA
25 versus 131
25 versus 4
HC + CC
Pro-spective
HC + CC
DS283 versus 139
283 versus 255
67 versus 198
67 versus 75
1.7 versus 5.3
1.7 versus 1.2
18 versus 13
18 versus 20
DRS: 1NRNRDRS: Major: 8%
Infection (1), cuff dehiscence (1)
Minor: 12%
OS: Major 21%
Cardiac (5), pulmonary (5), renal (4), CVA (1), infection (3), wound dehiscence (9)
Minor: 8%
LSC: NR

Gehrig et al. [84]
2005–2007
BMI ≥ 30
UNC
49 versus 32HCNR189 versus 21550 versus 1501.0 versus 1.331 versus 24DRS: 0
LSC: 3
NRDRS:
Enterotomy (1)
LSC: none
DRS: Major: 8%port-site hernia (3), cuff complication (1)
Minor 2%
LSC: Major 6% port-site hernia (1), cuff complication (1)
Minor 3%

Boggess et al. [85]
2005–2007
UNC
103 versus 138
103 versus 81
HC
HC
DS
SS
191 versus 146
191 versus 213
75 versus 266
75 versus 146
1 versus 4.4
1 versus 1.2
33 versus 15
33 versus 23
DRS: 2.8%
LSC: 3.7%
DRS: 1%
OS: 1.4%
LSC: 2.5%
DRS: bowel injury (1)
OS: enterotomy (1)
LSC:caval injury (1), bowel injury (1)
DRS: Major: 2%
Port-site hernia (1), PE (1)
Minor: 3%
OS: Major: 8%
CVA (1), ileus + readmission (7), DVT (2), PE (1), respiratory failure (1)
Minor: 21%
LSC: Major: 5%
port-site hernia (1), ileus readmission (1), vaginal dehiscence (1), abscess (1)
Minor: 5%

Bell et al. [86]
2005–2007
Sanford Clinic, Sioux Falls, SD
40 versus 40
40 versus 30
HC + CC
Retro-spective
HC + CC
SS
SS
184 versus 209
184 versus 171
166 versus 316
166 versus 253
2.3 versus 4.0
2.3 versus 4.0
17 versus 14
17 versus 17
NRDRS: 5%
OS: 15%
LSC: 10%
DRS: None
OS: genital femoral n. damage (1)
LSC: caval injury (1)
DRS: 8%
Port-site hernia (1), re-operation for bleeding (1), delayed void (1)
OS: 25%
Ileus (5), wound infection (2), lymphedema (1), cuff hematoma (1), incisional hernia (1)
LSC: 23%
Wound infection (3), DVT (1), cuff dehiscence (1), superficial phlebitis (1), A-fib (1)

DeNardis et al. [87]
2006-2007
Florida Hospital Cancer Institute
56 versus 106HC
Retro-spective
DS
177 versus 79
105 versus 241
1.0 versus 3.2
19 versus 18
DRS: 5.4%
0% versus 9%
None
DRS: 20%
respiratory failure (1), ileus (1), fever (2), atelectasis (1), wound complication (1), cuff hematoma/separation (4), UTI (1)
OS: 61%
fever (17), anemia (13), Ileus (4), ARF (2), PE (1), colitis (1), urinary retention (2), thrush (1), UTI (4), atelectasis (4), wound complication (13), lymphocele (1), cuff hematoma/separation (2)

Seamon et al. [88]
2006–2008
OU
105 versus 76HC
Pro-spective
SS242 versus 287100 versus 2501 versus 2 (med.)31 versus 33DRS: 12%
LSC: 26%
3% versus 13%3 versus 2
DRS: vessel injury (1), GI injury (2) versus OS: nerve injury (1),urinary tract injury (1)
DRS: 9%
port-site herniation (1), cardiac (1), pulmonary (1), other (5)
LSC: 10%
DVT (1), cardiac (1), neurologic (1), other (3)

Seamon et al. [89]
2006 –2008
BMI ≥ 30
OU + UAB
Matched: BMI + surgeon 1 : 2
109 versus 191HC
Retro- spective
SS228 versus 143109 versus 3941 versus 325 versus 24DRS: 15.6%2% versus 9%1 versus 2
DRS: GI injury (1) versus OS: vessel injury (1), GI injury (1)
DRS: 10%
cardiac (1), pulmonary (2), GI (2), urologic (1), fever (1), fistula (1), bleeding (1), other (3)
OS: 26%
DVT (1), cardiac (2), pulmonary (2), GI (19), urologic (2), (neurologic (1), fever (4), ARF (3), opiated OD (1), parasthesia (2), arrest (1), death (1)Wound complications: 11% versus 27%

Jung et al. [80]
2006–2009
Korea
28 versus 56
28 versus 25
CC
CC
Pro-specitve
SS
SS
193 versus 187
193 versus 165
NR7.9 versus 10.8
7.9 versus 7.7
21 versus 24
21 versus 18
noneDRS: 14%
OS: 43%
LSC: 16%
DRS: none
OS: 1 vessel injury
LSC: none
DRS: 7%
pelvic infection (2)
OS: 23%
uretral stricture (1), pelvic infection (2), ileus (1), incisional hernia (1), wound dehiscence (6), lymphocele (1), lymphedema (1)
LSC: 8%
Pelvic infection (2)

Cardenas-Goicoechea et al. [90]
2007–2010
U Penn
102 versus 173HC
Retro-spective
SS237 versus 178109 versus 1871.9 versus 2.322 versus 23DRS: 1%
LSC: 5.2%
2.9% versus 1.7%DRS: 2GI injury (2)
LSC: 6
Urinary tract injury (6)Higher rates of uretral injury in LSC
DRS: Major (2%)
PE (1), enterocutaneous fistula (1)
DRS: Minor 8%: lymphocele (1), UTI (2), cuff dehiscence (1), abscess (2), incsional hernia (1), ileus (1)
LSC: Major (0%)
Minor 8%: lymphocele (3), UTI (1), Pna (2), wound seroma (2), cuff cellulitis (2), SBO (1), hematoma (1), port-site abscess (1)

Lim et al. [91]
2008-2009
Center of HopeReno, Nevada
56 versus 36
56 versus 56
HC
HC
Pro-spective
SS Initial exp
SSInitial exp
163 versus 137
163 versus 192
89 versus 266
89 versus 209
1.6 versus 4.9
1.6 versus 2.6
27 versus 56
27 versus 45
DRS: 1.8%
LSC:7.1%
DRS: 0%
OS: 3%
LSC: 0%
DRS: 0OS: 0
LSC: 13% (7)
obturator n. injury (3), cystotomy (2), enterotomy (1), vessel injury (1)
DRS: Major: 5%
PE (1), abscess (1), perforated gastric ulcer (1)
Minor: 9%
OS: Major: 14%
Abscess/sepsis (1), fistula (1), pna (1), PE (1), hypertensive crisis (1)
Minor: 3%
LSC: Major: 11%
Fistula (1), obturator palsy (3), bacteremia (1), DVT (1)
Minor: 4%

Lim et al. [82]
2008–2010
Center of Hope Reno, Nevada
122 versus 122HC
Pro-spective
SSInitial ex147 versus 18781 versus 2071.5 versus 3.225 versus 43DRS: 0.8%
LSC: 6.6%
DRS: 0%
LSC: 2.5%
DRS: 0.8%
Enterotomy (1)
LSC: 6%
Obturator n. injury (3), cystotomy (2), enterotomy (1), vessel injury (1)
DRS: Major: 4%
PE (1), abscess (1), perforated gastric ulcer (1), bowel perforation (1)
Minor: 6%
LSC: Major: 10%
Fistula (1), obturator palsy (3), bacteremia (1), DVT (1), richter hernia (1), CVA (1)
Minor: 2%

Paley et al. [7]
2006–2009
Swedish Medical CenterSeattle, WA
377 versus 131HC
Pro-spective
DS184 versus 13947 versus 1981.4 versus 5.316 versus 13DRS: 3.5%DRS: 0.5%
OS: 0.8%
DRS: 0.5%
Vessel injury (1), cystotomy (1)
OS: 3%
Uretral injury/ARF
DRS: 5%
cardiac (1), pulmonary (3), DVT/PE (3), infection (4), labile bld sugar (2), ileus/SBO (2), chylous ascites (1), cuff dehiscence (4)
OS: 17%
Cardiac (5), pulmonary (1), DVT/PE (1), infection (6), wound dehiscence (9)

Hisoric conrols (HC), Concurrent controls (CC), same surgeon(s) (SS), different surgeon(s) (DS), estimated blood loss (EBL), not reported (NR). Sample size (N).
When not specified, DRS outcomes are reported first. Items in bold are significantly different determined by a two-sided alpha <0.05. Outcomes are reported as means unless otherwise noted.