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-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T23:24:02.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 11 - The Role of Robotics in Reproductive Surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2018

By
Antonio R. Gargiulo
Edited by
Jeffrey M. Goldberg ,
Ceana H. Nezhat  and
Jay Ira Sandlow
Jeffrey M. Goldberg
Affiliation:
Cleveland Clinic
Ceana H. Nezhat
Affiliation:
Nezhat Medical Center, Atlanta
Jay Ira Sandlow
Affiliation:
Medical College of Wisconsin
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Reproductive Surgery
The Society for Reproductive Surgeons' Manual
 , pp. 96 - 121
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

ABOG Program Requirements for Fellowship Graduate Medical Education for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. 2014. www.abog.org/publications/Program%20Requirements-REI-Sept%202014.pdf#search=“special%20requirements” (accessed August 26, 2016).Google Scholar
Parker, WH, Kaunitz, AM, Pritts, EA, et al. Leiomyoma morcellation review group. U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s guidance regarding morcellation of leiomyomas: well-intentioned, but is it harmful for women? Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:18–22.Google Scholar
Bedaiwy, MA, Zhang, A, Henry, D, et al. Surgical anatomy of supraumbilical port placement: implications for robotic and advanced laparoscopic surgery. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:e33.Google Scholar
Koh, C, Janik, G. Laparoscopic myomectomy: the current status. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2003;15:295–301.Google Scholar
Bush, AJ, Morris, SN, Millham, FH, et al. Women’s preferences for minimally invasive incisions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:640–3.Google Scholar
Goebel, K, Goldberg, JM. Women’s preference of cosmetic results after gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:64–7.Google Scholar
Yeung, PP, Jr, Bolden, CR, Westreich, D, et al. Patient preferences of cosmesis for abdominal incisions in gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:79–84.Google Scholar
Advincula, AP, Song, A, Burke, W, et al. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2004;11:511–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, G, Zolis, L, Kung, R, et al. The laparoscopic myomectomy: a survey of canadian gynaecologists. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32:139–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gargiulo, AR, Srouji, SS, Missmer, SA, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:284–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedient, CE, Magrina, JF, Noble, BN, et al. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:566 e1–5.Google Scholar
Nezhat, C, Lavie, O, Hsu, S, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy-a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:556–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Advincula, AP, Xu, X, Goudeau, St, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:698–705.Google Scholar
Pitter, MC, Gargiulo, AR, Bonaventura, LM, et al. Pregnancy outcomes following robot-assisted myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:99–108.Google Scholar
Pitter, M, Srouji, S, Gargiulo, A, et al. Fertility and symptom relief following robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2015;967568.Google Scholar
Choussein, S, Srouji, SS, Missmer, SA, et al. Perioperative outcomes and complications of robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM). J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:S70.Google Scholar
Barton, SE, Gargiulo, AR. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy and adenomyomectomy with a flexible CO2 laser device. J Robotic Surg. 2013;7:157–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chong, GO, Lee, YH, Hong, DG, et al. Long-term efficacy of laparoscopic or robotic adenomyomectomy with or without medical treatment for severely symptomatic adenomyosis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2016;81:346–52.Google Scholar
Choussein, S, Hariton, E, Bortolotto, P, et al. Current trends and controversies in reproductive surgery. Epub ahead of print, Minerva Ginecol. 2016;68:700–12.Google Scholar
Kishi, Y, Yabuta, M, Taniguchi, F. Who will benefit from uterus-sparing surgery in adenomyosis-associated subfertility? Fertil Steril. 2014;102:802–7.Google Scholar
Gargiulo, AR. Will computer-assisted surgery shake the foundations of surgical ethics in the age of patient-centered medicine? In: OBG Management Supplement: Innovations in Patient Safety for Women’s Health: Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery. 2015;7:S20–4.Google Scholar
Culligan, P, Gurshumov, E, Lewis, C, et al. Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:48–51.Google Scholar
AAGL special article: guidelines for privileging for robotic-assisted gynecologic laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:157–67.Google Scholar
Angioli, R, Battista, C, Terranova, C, et al. Intraoperative contact ultrasonography during open myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1487–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shwayder, J, Sakhel, K. Imaging for uterine myomas and adenomyosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:362–76.Google Scholar
Moghadam, R, Lathi, RB, Shahmohamady, B, et al. Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating between leiomyoma and adenomyosis. JSLS. 2006;10:216–19.Google Scholar
Santos, P, Cunha, TM. Uterine sarcomas: clinical presentation and MRI features. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015;21:4–9.Google Scholar
Celik, H, Sapmaz, E. Use of a single preoperative dose of misoprostol is efficacious for patients who undergo abdominal myomectomy. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1207–10.Google Scholar
Ragab, A, Khaiary, M, Badawy, A. The use of single versus double dose of intra-vaginal prostaglandin E2 “misoprostol” prior to abdominal myomectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Reprod Infertil. 2014;15:152–6.Google Scholar
Caglar, GS, Tasci, Y, Kayikcioglu, F, et al. Intravenous tranexamic acid use in myomectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind placebo controlled study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;137:227–31.Google Scholar
Wright, JD, Tergas, AI, Cui, R, et al. Use of electric power morcellation and prevalence of underlying cancer in women who undergo myomectomy. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:69–77.Google Scholar
Tinelli, A, Malvasi, A, Hurst, BS, et al. Surgical management of neurovascular bundle in uterine fibroid pseudocapsule. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2012;16:119–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osada, H, Silber, S, Kakinuma, T, et al. Surgical procedure to conserve the uterus for future pregnancy in patients suffering from massive adenomyosis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22:94–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nishida, M, Takano, K, Arai, Y, et al. Conservative surgical management for diffuse uterine adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:715–19.Google Scholar
Cohen, SL, Senapati, S, Gargiulo, AR, et al. Dilute versus concentrated vasopressin administration during laparoscopic myomectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;124:262–8.Google Scholar
Bailey, AP, Lancerotto, L, Gridley, C, et al. Greater surgical precision of a flexible carbon dioxide laser fiber compared to monopolar electrosurgery in porcine myometrium. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:1103–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pluchino, N, Litta, P, Freschi, L, et al. Comparison of the initial surgical experience with robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Int J Med Robot. 2014;10:208–12.Google Scholar
Tulandi, T, Einarsson, JI. The use of barbed suture for laparoscopic hysterectomy and myomectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:210–16.Google Scholar
Lewis, EI, Srouji, SS, Gargiulo, AR. Robotic single site myomectomy: initial report and technique. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103:1370–7.Google Scholar
Gargiulo, AR, Lewis, EI, Kaser, DJ, et al. Robotic single site myomectomy: a step by step tutorial. Fertil Steril. 2015;104.Google Scholar
Choussein, S, Srouji, SS, Farland, LV, et al. Flexible carbon dioxide laser fiber versus ultrasonic scalpel in robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:1183–90.Google Scholar
Quaas, AM, Einarsson, JI, Srouji, SS, et al. Robotic myomectomy: a review of indications and techniques. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2010;3:185–91.Google Scholar
Nezhat, CR, Stevens, A, Balassiano, E, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy vs conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:40–4.Google Scholar
Magrina, JF, Espada, M, Kho, RM, et al. Surgical excision of advanced endometriosis: perioperative outcomes and impacting factors. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:944–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenihan, JP Jr. Navigating credentialing, privileging, and learning curves in robotics with an evidence and experienced-based approach. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54:382–90.Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Xu, L, Shi, G. Is mechanical bowel preparation necessary for gynecologic surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Epub ahead of print, Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2016;81:155–61.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;5:886–96.Google Scholar
Multani, J, Kives, S. Dermoid cysts in adolescents. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27:315–19.Google Scholar
Benezra, V, Verma, U, Whitted, R. Comparison of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the surgical treatment of ovarian dermoid cysts. Gynecol Surg. 2005;2:89–92.Google Scholar
Templeman, CL, Hertweck, SP, Scheetz, JP, et al. The management of mature cystic teratomas in children and adolescents: a retrospective analysis. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2669–72.Google Scholar
Savasi, I, Lacy, JA, Gerstle, JT, et al. Management of ovarian dermoid cysts in the pediatric and adolescent population. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2009;22:360–4.Google Scholar
Pansky, M, Shade, D, Moskovitch, M, et al. Inadvertent rupture of benign cystic teratoma does not impair future fertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:442e1–4.Google Scholar
Lafay Pillet, MC, Huchon, C, Santulli, P, et al. A clinical score can predict associated deep infiltrating endometriosis before surgery for an endometrioma. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1666–76.Google Scholar
Muzii, L, Miller, CE. The singer, not the song. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18:666–7.Google Scholar
Donnez, J, Lousse, JC, Jadoul, P, et al. Laparoscopic management of endometriomas using a combined technique of excisional (cystectomy) and ablative surgery. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:28–32.Google Scholar
Muzii, L, Panici, PB. Combined technique of excision and ablation for the surgical treatment of ovarian endometriomas: the way forward? Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:300–2.Google Scholar
Muzii, L, Achilli, C, Bergamini, V, et al. Comparison between the stripping technique and the combined excisional/ablative technique for the treatment of bilateral ovarian endometriomas: a multicentre RCT. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:339–44.Google Scholar
Asgari, Z, Rouholamin, S, Hosseini, R, et al. Comparing ovarian reserve after laparoscopic excision of endometriotic cysts and hemostasis achieved either by bipolar coagulation or suturing: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293:1015–22.Google Scholar
Lokich, E, Palisoul, M, Romano, N, et al. Assessing the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm for the conservative management of women with a pelvic mass. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;139:248–52.Google Scholar
Gargiulo, AR, Feltmate, C, Srouji, SS. Robotic single-site excision of ovarian endometrioma. Fertil Res Pract. 2015;1:19.Google Scholar
Vignali, M, Mabrouk, M, Ciocca, E, et al. Surgical excision of ovarian endometriomas: does it truly impair ovarian reserve? Long term anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) changes after surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41:1773–8.Google Scholar
Lind, T, Hammarström, M, Lampic, C, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone reduction after ovarian cyst surgery is dependent on the histological cyst type and preoperative anti-müllerian hormone levels. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94:183–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, E, Allen, L, Kives, S. The recurrence rate of ovarian dermoid cysts in pediatric and adolescent girls. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2014;27:222–8.Google Scholar
Busacca, M, Marana, R, Caruana, P, et al. Recurrence of ovarian endometrioma after laparoscopic excision. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:519–23.Google Scholar
Deffieux, X, Morin Surroca, M, Faivre, E, et al. Tubal anastomosis after tubal sterilization: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet Rev. 2011;283:1149–58.Google Scholar
Yoon, TK, Sung, HR, Kang, HG, et al. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1121–6.Google Scholar
Rodgers, AK, Goldberg, JM, Hammel, JP, et al. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1375–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dharia Patel, SP, Steinkampf, MP, Whitten, SJ, et al. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1175–9.Google Scholar
Caillet, M Fau, Vandromme, J, Vandromme, J Fau, Rozenberg, S, Rozenberg, S Fau, Paesmans, M, et al. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1844–7.Google Scholar
The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:e37–43.Google Scholar
Berger, GS, Thorp, JM Jr, Weaver, MA. Effectiveness of bilateral tubotubal anastomosis in a large outpatient population. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:1120–5.Google Scholar
Kavoussi, SK, Kavoussi, KM, Lebovic, DI. Robotic-assisted tubal anastomosis with one-stitch technique. J Robot Surg. 2014;8:133–6.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
×