Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-31T03:51:39.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Robotic Surgery

from Section 2 - Gynecologic Surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2018

By
Tonya N. Thomas  and
J. Eric Jelovsek
Edited by
Lisa Keder  and
Martin E. Olsen
Lisa Keder
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Martin E. Olsen
Affiliation:
East Tennessee State University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Gynecologic Care , pp. 113 - 129
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Schiavone, MB, Kuo, EC, Naumann, RW et al. The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecologic surgery by hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;207(3):174.e1-7.Google Scholar
Wright, JD, Herzog, TJ, Tsui, J et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Aug;122(2 Pt 1):233–41.Google Scholar
da Vinci Surgery Community Online Training Modules [Internet]. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.; 2016 [cited Feb 8, 2016]. Available from: www.davincisurgerycommunity.com/training/onlinemodule?&tab1=TR.Google Scholar
Committee Opinion No. 628: Robotic surgery in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;125(3):760–7.Google Scholar
Gala, RB, Margulies, R, Steinberg, A et al. Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 May–Jun;21(3):353–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, H, Lawrie, TA, Lu, D, Song, H, Wang, L, Shi, G. Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 10;12:CD011422.Google Scholar
Aarts, JW, Nieboer, TE, Johnson, N et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;8:CD003677.Google Scholar
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: Choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Nov;114(5):1156–8.Google Scholar
Sarlos, D, Kots, L, Stevanovic, N, von Fenton, S, Schar, G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;120(3):604–11.Google Scholar
Paraiso, MF, Ridgeway, B, Park, AJ et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 May;208(5):368.e1-7.Google Scholar
Woelk, JL, Borah, BJ, Trabuco, EC, Heien, HC, Gebhart, JB. Cost differences among robotic, vaginal, and abdominal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Feb;123(2 Pt 1):255–62.Google Scholar
Landeen, LB, Bell, MC, Hubert, HB et al. Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. S D Med. 2011 Jun;64(6):197–9.Google Scholar
Lonnerfors, C, Reynisson, P, Persson, J. A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Jan;22(1):78–86.Google Scholar
Wright, JD, Ananth, CV, Lewin, SN et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. J A Med Assoc. 2013 Feb;20;309(7):689–98.Google Scholar
Gehrig, PA, Cantrell, LA, Shafer, A, Abaid, LN, Mendivil, A, Boggess, JF. What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Oct;111(1):41–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, MC, Torgerson, J,Seshadri-Kreaden, U, Suttle, AW, Hunt, S. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Dec;111(3):407–11.Google Scholar
Boggess, JF, Gehrig, PA, Cantrell, L et al. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):360.e1-9.Google Scholar
Seamon, LG, Cohn, DE, Henretta, MS et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Apr;113(1):36–41.Google Scholar
Cardenas-Goicoechea, J, Adams, S, Bhat, SB, Randall, TC. Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center. Gynecol Oncol. 2010 May;117(2):224–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, PC, Kang, E, Park, DH. Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 Nov–Dec;17(6):739–48.Google Scholar
Lim, PC, Kang, E, Park, DH. A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Mar;120(3):413–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magrina, JF, Zanagnolo, V, Giles, D, Noble, BN, Kho, RM, Magtibay, PM. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes and recurrence with laparoscopy, vaginal/laparoscopy and laparotomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2011;32(5):476–80.Google Scholar
Martino, MA, Shubella, J, Thomas, MB et al. A cost analysis of postoperative management in endometrial cancer patients treated by robotics versus laparoscopic approach. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Dec;123(3):528–31.Google Scholar
Seamon, LG, Bryant, SA, Rheaume, PS et al. Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;114(1):16–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeNardis, SA, Holloway, RW, Bigsby, GE IV, Pikaart, DP, Ahmad, S, Finkler, NJ. Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Dec;111(3):412–7.Google Scholar
ElSahwi, KS, Hooper, C, De Leon, MC et al. Comparison between 155 cases of robotic vs. 150 cases of open surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2012 Feb;124(2):260–4.Google Scholar
Subramaniam, A, Kim, KH, Bryant, SA et al. A cohort study evaluating robotic versus laparotomy surgical outcomes of obese women with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Sep;122(3):604–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, JC, Judd, JP, Wu, JM, Scales, CD Jr, Myers, ER, Havrilesky, LJ. Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Sep;116(3):685–93.Google Scholar
Soliman, PT, Frumovitz, M, Sun, CC et al. Radical hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical approaches after adoption of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Nov;123(2):333–6.Google Scholar
Boggess, JF, Gehrig, PA, Cantrell, L et al. A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):357.e1-7.Google Scholar
Maggioni, A, Minig, L, Zanagnolo, V et al. Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Oct;115(1):60–4.Google Scholar
Cantrell, LA, Mendivil, A, Gehrig, PA, Boggess, JF. Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2010 May;117(2):260–5.Google Scholar
Geisler, JP, Orr, CJ, Khurshid, N, Phibbs, G, Manahan, KJ. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared with open radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010 Apr;20(3):438–42.Google Scholar
Nam, EJ, Kim, SW, Kim, S et al. A case-control study of robotic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy using 3 robotic arms compared with abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010 Oct;20(7):1284–9.Google Scholar
Pundir, J, Pundir, V, Walavalkar, R, Omanwa, K, Lancaster, G, Kayani, S. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 May–Jun;20(3):335–45.Google Scholar
Hanafi, MM, Hsu, YS, Fomo, AN. Comparative study between robotic laparoscopic myomectomy and abdominal myomectomy and factors affecting short-term surgical outcomes. J Reprod Med Endokrinol. 2010;7(4):258.Google Scholar
Advincula, AP, Xu, X, Goudeau, S IV, Ransom, SB. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007 Nov–Dec;14(6):698–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ascher-Walsh, CJ, Capes, TL. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 May–Jun;17(3):306–10.Google Scholar
Sangha, R. Eisenstein, D. George, A. Munkarah, A. Wegienka, G. Comparison of surgical outcomes for robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared to abdominal myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 Nov–Dec;17(6 Suppl 1):S108.Google Scholar
Barakat, EE, Bedaiwy, MA, Zimberg, S, Nutter, B, Nosseir, M, Falcone, T. Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Feb;117(2 Pt 1):256–65.Google Scholar
Nash, K, Feinglass, J, Zei, C et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Feb;285(2):435–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mansour, FW, Kives, S, Urbach, DR, Lefebvre, G. Robotically assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: a Canadian experience. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012 Apr;34(4):353–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C, Lavie, O, Hsu, S, Watson, J, Barnett, O, Lemyre, M. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy: a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril. 2009 Feb;91(2):556–9.Google Scholar
Bedient, CE, Magrina, JF, Noble, BN, Kho, RM. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):566.e1-5.Google Scholar
Gargiulo, AR, Srouji, SS, Missmer, SA, Correia, KF, Vellinga, TT, Einarsson, JI. robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Aug;120(2, Pt 1):284–91.Google Scholar
Carbonnel, M, Goetgheluck, J, Frati, A, Even, M, Ayoubi, JM. Robot-assisted laparoscopy for infertility treatment: current views. Fertil Steril. 2014 Mar;101(3):621–6.Google Scholar
Nezhat, C, Lewis, M, Kotikela, S et al. Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2010 Dec;94(7):2758–60.Google Scholar
Ercoli, A, D’asta, M, Fagotti, A et al. Robotic treatment of colorectal endometriosis: technique, feasibility and short-term results. Hum Reprod. 2012 Mar;27(3):722–6.Google Scholar
Collinet, P, Leguevaque, P, Neme, RM et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopy for deep infiltrating endometriosis: international multicentric retrospective study. Surg Endosc. 2014 Aug;28(8):2474–9.Google Scholar
Anger, JT, Mueller, ER, Tarnay, C et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jan;123(1):5–12.Google Scholar
Paraiso, MF, Jelovsek, JE, Frick, A, Chen, CC, Barber, MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Nov;118(5):1005–13.Google Scholar
Wright, JD, Kostolias, A, Ananth, CV et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotically assisted compared with laparoscopic adnexal surgery for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Nov;124(5):886–96.Google Scholar
George, K, Kamath, MS, Tharyan, P. Minimally invasive versus open surgery for reversal of tubal sterilization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb;2:CD009174.Google Scholar
Dharia Patel, SP, Steinkampf, MP, Whitten, SJ, Malizia, BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril. 2008 Oct;90(4):1175–9.Google Scholar
Rodgers, AK, Goldberg, JM, Hammel, JP, Falcone, T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jun;109(6):1375–80.Google Scholar
Owens, AE, Irobunda, HO, Henne, MB. Microscopic tubal reversal: robot assisted laparoscopy or microsurgery?. Fertil Steril. 2012 Sep;98(3 Suppl 1):S36.Google Scholar
AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL position statement: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery in benign gynecology. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Jan–Feb;20(1):2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenihan, JP Jr, Kovanda, C, Seshadri-Kreaden, U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery?. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008 Sep–Oct;15(5):589–94.Google Scholar
Yamasato, K, Casey, D, Kaneshiro, B, Hiraoka, M. Effect of robotic surgery on hysterectomy trends: implications for resident education. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 May–Jun;21(3):399–405.Google Scholar
Jeppson, PC, Rahimi, S, Gattoc, L et al. Impact of robotic technology on hysterectomy route and associated implications for resident education. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;212(2):196.e1-6.Google Scholar
Moola, D, Westermann, LB, Pauls, R, Eschenbacher, M, Crisp, C. The impact of robotic-assisted surgery on training gynecology residents. Fem Pelv Med Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jan–Feb;22(1):11–15.Google Scholar
Schreuder, HW, Wolswijk, R, Zweemer, RP, Schijven, MP, Verheijen, RH. Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. B J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jan;119(2):137–49.Google Scholar
Bienstock, J, Adams, KE, Connolly, A et al. The Obstetrics and Gynecology Milestones Project [Internet]. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; 2015 [version 09/2013; cited 2016 Feb 8]. Available from: www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/portals/0/pdfs/milestones/obstetricsandgynecologymilestones.pdf.Google Scholar
AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. Guidelines for privileging for robotic-assisted gynecologic laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 Mar–Apr;21(2):157–67.Google Scholar
Makai, G, Isaacson, K. Complications of gynecologic laparoscopy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Sep;52(3):401–11.Google Scholar
Sharma, KC, Brandstetter, RD, Brensilver, JM, Jung, LD. Cardiopulmonary physiology and pathophysiology as a consequence of laparoscopic surgery. Chest. 1996 Sep;110(3):810–5.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×