J Korean Med Assoc.  2012 Jul;55(7):635-640. 10.5124/jkma.2012.55.7.635.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynecology: indications and efficacy

• Chung YJ
• Kim MR

• KMID: 2192725
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2012.55.7.635

Abstract

The development of robotic technology has facilitated the application of minimally invasive techniques for complex gynecologic surgery. Some major advantages of robotic surgery are three-dimensional magnification and articulation beyond normal manipulation. It also detects and filters out any tremors in the surgeon's hand movements, so that they are suitable for microsurgery. Compared to laparotomy, robotic gynecological cancer surgery results in improved clinical outcomes and comparable lymph node yields. Radical trachelectomy is an alternative therapy in early cervical cancer in women who wish to retain fertility. Anatomic restriction to the vaginal approach such as lack of pelvic descent is overcome using the robotic technique. This also enables preservation of the uterine vessels and increased precision and visualization during surgery. Robotic and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy are equivalent regarding surgical and clinical outcomes. Operating times are longer and costs are significantly higher for the robotic procedure. Robotic surgery has the potential to become an enabler for gynecologic minimally invasive surgery, especially suture-intensive operations such as myomectomy. Patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy had significantly decreased blood loss, complication rates, and length of stay. The ultimate role of robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is to supplant open myomectomy as the standard of care for conservative surgical treatment of myomas. Robot-assisted treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis is feasible and safe. Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrated similar short-term surgical outcome compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy, with longer operative time, less blood loss, and a shorter length of stay. Except for its higher cost, robotic surgery in gynecology is feasible with a low complication rate and comparable surgical outcomes.

Keyword

Robotics; Minimally invasive surgery; Myomectomy; Radical hysterectomy; Sacrocolpopexy

MeSH Terms

Endometriosis
Female
Fertility
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
Gynecology
Hand
Humans
Hysterectomy
Laparotomy
Length of Stay
Lymph Nodes
Microsurgery
Myoma
Operative Time
Robotics
Standard of Care
Tremor
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms

Reference

1. Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, Hayati S. A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1988. 35:153–160.

2. Davies BL, Hibberd RD, Ng WS, Timoney AG, Wickham JE. The development of a surgeon robot for prostatectomies. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1991. 205:35–38.

3. Paul HA, Bargar WL, Mittlestadt B, Musits B, Taylor RH, Kazanzides P, Zuhars J, Williamson B, Hanson W. Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992. (285):57–66.

4. Falcone T, Goldberg J, Garcia-Ruiz A, Margossian H, Stevens L. Full robotic assistance for laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: a case report. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1999. 9:107–113.

5. Song JY. Future perspectives of robot surgery in gynecology. Proceedings of the 12th workshop of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery. 2012. 2012 Jun 3; Seoul, Korea. Seoul: Korean Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery.

6. Mukhopadhaya N, De Silva C, Manyonda IT. Conventional myomectomy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008. 22:677–705.

7. Jin C, Hu Y, Chen XC, Zheng FY, Lin F, Zhou K, Chen FD, Gu HZ. Laparoscopic versus open myomectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009. 145:14–21.

8. Tulandi T, Murray C, Guralnick M. Adhesion formation and reproductive outcome after myomectomy and second-look laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol. 1993. 82:213–215.

9. Takeuchi H, Kinoshita K. Evaluation of adhesion formation after laparoscopic myomectomy by systematic second-look microlaparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2002. 9:442–446.

10. Luciano AA. Myomectomy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009. 52:362–371.

11. Quaas AM, Einarsson JI, Srouji S, Gargiulo AR. Robotic myomectomy: a review of indications and techniques. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2010. 3:185–191.

12. Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau S 4th, Ransom SB. 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.

13. 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. 17:306–310.

14. Nash K, Feinglass J, Zei C, Lu G, Mengesha B, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Lin A. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012. 285:435–440.

15. Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, Kho RM. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009. 201:566.e1–566.e5.

16. Lonnerfors C, Persson J. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: a feasible technique for removal of unfavorably localized myomas. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009. 88:994–999.

17. Carvalho L, Abrao MS, Deshpande A, Falcone T. Robotics as a new surgical minimally invasive approach to treatment of endometriosis: a systematic review. Int J Med Robot. 2012. 8:160–165.

18. Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011. 22:1445–1457.

19. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, Zyczynski H. Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004. 104:805–823.

20. Carroll AW, Lamb E, Hill AJ, Gill EJ, Matthews CA. Surgical management of apical pelvic support defects: the impact of robotic technology. Int Urogynecol J. 2012. 04. 12. [Epub]. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-012-1749-4.

21. Vitobello D, Siesto G, Bulletti C. Robotic sacral hysteropexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Med Robot. 2012. 8:114–117.

22. Soto E, Lo Y, Friedman K, Soto C, Nezhat F, Chuang L, Gretz H. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus da Vinci robotic hysterectomy: is using the robot beneficial? J Gynecol Oncol. 2011. 22:253–259.

23. Nezhat CR, Burrell MO, Nezhat FR, Benigno BB, Welander CE. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992. 166:864–865.

24. Nezhat F. Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: laparoscopy versus robotics. Gynecol Oncol. 2008. 111:2 Suppl. S29–S32.

25. Zakashansky K, Chuang L, Gretz H, Nagarsheth NP, Rahaman J, Nezhat FR. A case-controlled study of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in a fellowship training program. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007. 17:1075–1082.

26. Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Feltmate CM. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecol Oncol. 2008. 111:425–430.

27. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, Fowler WC. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008. 199:360.e1–360.e9.

28. Plante M, Renaud MC, Hoskins IA, Roy M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy: a valuable fertility-preserving option in the management of early-stage cervical cancer. A series of 50 pregnancies and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2005. 98:3–10.

29. Bernardini M, Barrett J, Seaward G, Covens A. Pregnancy outcomes in patients after radical trachelectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003. 189:1378–1382.

30. Burnett AF, Stone PJ, Duckworth LA, Roman JJ. Robotic radical trachelectomy for preservation of fertility in early cervical cancer: case series and description of technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009. 16:569–572.