Skip to main content

Table 2 Operative data in the two groups

From: Is robotic-assisted vaginectomy a better choice in vaginal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions than conventional laparoscopic surgery?

 

CLV group

(n = 77)

RALV group

(n = 32)

χ2/t/z

P value

Total operation time, min

118.2 ± 41.0

129.9 ± 43.8

-1.331

0.186

Estimated blood loss, mL

68.1 ± 56.4

41.6 ± 40.3

2.415

0.017

Length of resected vagina, cm

3.5(3.0-4.5)

5.0(4.3–5.9)

-4.375

< 0.001

Intraoperative complications

19 (24.7)

2 (6.3)

4.934

0.026

 Hemorrhage

6 (7.8)

1 (3.1)

  

 Bladder injury

10 (13.0)

1 (3.1)

  

 Ureteral injury

2 (2.6)

0

  

 Rectal injury

1 (1.3)

0

  

Postoperative complications

14 (18.2)

2 (6.3)

1.705

0.192

 Urinary retention

3 (3.9)

1 (3.1)

  

 Infection

6 (7.8)

0

  

 VTE in the lower limbs

4 (5.2)

1 (3.1)

  

 Surgical incision dehiscence

1 (1.3)

0

  

Flatus passing time, day

2.0 (2.0–2.0)

2.0 (1.0–2.0)

-4.050

< 0.001

Postoperative catheterization time, day

4.0 (2.0–6.0)

2.0 (2.0–3.0)

-3.216

0.001

Postoperative hospitalization time, day

5.0 (4.0–6.0)

4.0(4.0–5.0)

-2.320

0.020

Positive surgical margin

  

-

1.000

 Yes

1 (1.3)

0

  

 No

76 (98.7)

32 (100)

  

Pathology upgrading

  

0.133

0.716

 Yes

2 (2.6)

2 (6.2)

  

 No

75 (97.4)

30 (93.8)

  

Hospital cost, yuan

32706.8 ± 6659.2

53035.1 ± 9539.0

-10.993

< 0.001

  1. VTE, venous thromboembolism; CLV, conventional laparoscopic vaginectomy; RALV, robotic-assisted laparoscopic vaginectomy