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-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:04:42.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 47 - Robotic Gynaecological Surgery

from Section 10 - Operative Gynaecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2021

By
Pawel Mach  and
Rainer Kimmig
Edited by
Tahir Mahmood ,
Charles Savona-Ventura ,
Ioannis Messinis  and
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Tahir Mahmood
Affiliation:
Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
Charles Savona-Ventura
Affiliation:
University of Malta, Malta
Ioannis Messinis
Affiliation:
University of Thessaly, Greece
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Affiliation:
Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, UK
Get access

Summary

Robotic surgery has evolved rapidly over the last 15 years. An increasing number of successful procedures has led to the acceptance by the FDA of the DaVinci® system in 2005 for gynaecological operations. The growing popularity of this system in many centres has practically led to the replacement of classical laparoscopy and open surgery by robotic surgery in many gynaecological operations. Robotic surgery is used both in benign conditions, such as uterine myoma, endometriosis and prolapse as well as in oncological indications, such as endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer. Here we describe the basic principles of robotic surgery, available systems and training needs, as well as use and common complications in gynaecological disorders.

Keywords

robotic surgeryminimally invasive surgeryDaVinci
Type
Chapter
Information
The EBCOG Postgraduate Textbook of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Gynaecology
 , pp. 415 - 423
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Lauterbach, R, Matanes, E, Lowenstein, L. Review of robotic surgery in gynecology: the future is here. Rambam Maimonides Med J 2017;8:e0019.Google Scholar
Krishnakumar, S, Tambe, P. Entry complications in laparoscopic surgery. J Gynecol Endosc Surg 2009;1:4e11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laskaris, J, Regan, K. Soft Tissue Robotics: The Next Generation, vol. 7. Dallas, TX: MD Buyline, 2014.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 628: robotic surgery in Gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:760–767.Google Scholar
Rusch, P, Kimmig, R, Lecuru, F, et al. The Society of European Robotic Gynaecological Surgery (SERGS) pilot curriculum for robot assisted gynecological surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2018;297:415–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandadi, S, Gadzinski, JA, Lee, S, et al. Fellowship learning curve associated with completing a robotic assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2014;132:102–106.Google Scholar
Wright, JD, Ananth, CV, Lewin, SN, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 2013;309:689–698.Google Scholar
Nawfal, AK, Orady, M, Eisenstein, D, Wegienka, G. Effect of body mass index on robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18:328–332.Google Scholar
Orady, M, Nawfal, AK, Wegienka, G. Does size matter? The effect of uterine weight on robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy outcomes. J Robot Surg 2011;5:267–272.Google Scholar
Payne, TN, Dauterive, FR, Pitter, MC, et al. Robotically assisted hysterectomy in patients with large uteri: outcomes in five community practices. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:535–542.Google Scholar
Orady, M, Hrynewych, A, Nawfal, AK, Wegienka, G. Comparison of robotic-assisted hysterectomy to other minimally invasive approaches. JSLS 2012;16:542–548.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;91:556–559.Google Scholar
Freeman, RM, Pantazis, K, Thomson, A, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:377–384.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;118:1005–1013.Google Scholar
Paley, PJ, Veljovich, DS, Shah, CA, et al. Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: analysis of first 1000 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:551e1–551e9.Google Scholar
Ind, T, Laios, A, Hacking, M, Nobbenhuis, M. A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2017;13:e1851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seamon, LG, Bryant, SA, Rheaume, PS, et al. Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:16–21.Google Scholar
Gehrig, PA, Cantrell, LA, Shafer, A, et al. What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol 2008;111:41–45.Google Scholar
Sert, MB, Abeler, V. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: comparison with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy; one surgeon’s experience at the Norwegian Radium Hospital. Gynecol Oncol 2011;121:600–604.Google Scholar
Soliman, PT, Langley, G, Munsell, MF, et al. Analgesic and antiemetic requirements after minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer: a comparison between laparoscopy and robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:1355–1359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;117:260–265.Google Scholar
Ramirez, PT, Frumovitz, M, Pareja, R, et al. Phase III randomized trial of laparoscopic or robotic vs. abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: LACC Trial. SGO Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. New Orleans, 24–27 March 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardenas-Goicoechea, J, Wang, Y, McGorray, S, et al. Minimally invasive interval cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 2018;13:23–33.Google Scholar
Closhen, D, Treiber, AH, Berres, M, et al. Robotic assisted prostatic surgery in the Trendelenburg position does not impair cerebral oxygenation measured using two different monitors: a clinical observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014;31:104e9.Google Scholar
Tomescu, DR, Popescu, M, Dima, SO, et al. Obesity is associated with decreased lung compliance and hypercapnia during robotic assisted surgery. J Clin Monit Comput 2017;31:85e92.Google Scholar
Phong, SV, Koh, LK. Anaesthesia for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: considerations for laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg position. Anaesth Intensive Care 2007;35:281e5.Google Scholar
Bauer, EC, Koch, N, Janni, W, et al. Compartment syndrome after gynecologic operations: evidence from case reports and reviews. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;173:7e12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gainsburg, DM. Anesthetic concerns for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Minerva Anestesiol 2012;78:596e604.Google ScholarPubMed
Backes, FJ, Brudie, LA, Farrell, MR, et al. Short- and long-term morbidity and outcomes after robotic surgery for comprehensive endometrial cancer staging. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:546e51.Google Scholar
Park, DA, Yun, JE, Kim, SW, et al. Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.07.017.Google Scholar
Chan, JK, Morrow, J, Manetta, A. Prevention of ureteral injuries in gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1273e7.Google Scholar
Picerno, T, Sloan, NL, Escobar, P, et al. Bowel injury in robotic gynecologic surgery: risk factors and management options. A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:10e26.Google Scholar
Unger, CA, Lachiewicz, MP, Ridgeway, B. Risk factors for robotic gynecologic procedures requiring conversion to other surgical procedures. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;135:299e303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Persson, J, Reynisson, P, Borgfeldt, C, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with short and long term morbidity data. Gynecol Oncol 2009;113:185e90.Google Scholar
Lavazzo, C, Gkegkes, ID. Port-site metastases in patients with gynecological cancer after robot-assisted operations. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;292:263e9.Google Scholar
Martinez, A, Querleu, D, Leblanc, E, et al. Low incidence of port-site metastases after laparoscopic staging of uterine cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2010;118:145e50.Google Scholar
Vetter, MH, Mutscheller, C, Cardenas-Goicoechea, J. Iatrogenic lower extremity subcutaneous emphysema after prolonged robotic-assisted hysterectomy. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol 2015;2015:860719.Google Scholar
Drudi, L, Press, JZ, Lau, S, et al. Vaginal vault dehiscence after robotic hysterectomy for gynecologic cancers: search for risk factors and literature review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013;23:943e50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tse, KY, Ngan, HYS, Lim, PC. Robot-assisted gynaecological cancer surgery-complications and prevention. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2017;45:94–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×