Beyond the scalpel: unveiling the transformative landscape of robotic gynecologic procedures
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20241097Keywords:
Gynecologic cancer, Minimally invasive surgery, Robotic surgery, Gynecologic oncologyAbstract
This review aims to present a comprehensive assessment of the current status and impact of robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) in gynecological surgery across various subspecialties, exploring its benefits, applications, and challenges. This included studies evaluating RAL in general gynecology, urogynecology, and gynecological oncology. RAL has emerged as a transformative technology, demonstrating efficacy in procedures ranging from routine gynecologic tasks to complex oncological surgeries. The adoption of RAL has facilitated improved surgical outcomes, reduced learning curves, and enhanced visualization. Superior dexterity, 3D vision, and filtered tremor contribute to its precision. The ergonomic advantages, including intuitive instrument movements and a third assisting arm, further enhance positive outcomes. Notably, RAL has shown promise in managing challenging patient demographics, such as morbidly obese individuals and those with intricate pelvic anatomy. In gynecological oncology, RAL has become integral, manifesting benefits in endometrial, cervical, and ovarian cancer surgeries. Despite challenges like cost considerations, RAL continues to shape the landscape of gynecological surgery, promising improved patient outcomes and contributing to the paradigm shift toward minimally invasive approaches. Ongoing research should focus on long-term cost-effectiveness, patient perspectives, and attitudes toward RAL, ensuring its continued integration into the evolving field of gynecological surgery.
Metrics
References
Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1752-8.
Mais V, Ajossa S, Guerriero S, Mascia M, Solla E, Melis GB. Laparoscopic versus abdominal myomectomy: a prospective, randomized trial to evaluate benefits in early outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174(2):654-8.
Marescaux J, Rubino F. The ZEUS robotic system: experimental and clinical applications. Surg Clin N Am. 2003;83(6):1305-5.
Peplinski R. Past, present and future of the Da Vinci robot,” in 2nd UK Robotic Urology Course, Guy’s Hospital, London, UK, 2006.
Hanna RK, Boggess JF. Applications of surgical robotics in gyneco- logic surgery. In: Rosen J, Hannaford B, Satava R, editors. Surgical robotics. Boston, MA: Springer; 2011: 761-789.
Payne TN, Dauterive FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hyster- ectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:286-91.
Sorensen SMD, Savran MM, Konge L, Bjerrum F. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:11-23.
Sahu D, Mathew MJ, Reddy PK. 3D laparoscopy - help or hype; initial experience of a tertiary health Centre. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:NC01-3.
Lawrie TA, Liu D, Dowswell T, Song H, Wang L, Shi G. Robot- assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4:CD011422.
Lonnersford C, Persson J. Implementation and applications of robotic surgery within gynecologic oncology and gynecology: analysis of the first 1000 cases. Ceska Gynekol. 2013;78:12-9.
Casarin J, Song C, Multinu F, Cappuccio S, Liu E, Butler KA, et al. Implementing robotic surgery for uterine cancer in the United States: better outcomes without increased costs. Gynecol Oncol. 2020;156:451-8.
Stucky CH, Cromwell KD, Voss RK, Chiang YJ, Woodman K, Lee JE, et al. Surgeon symptoms, strain, and selections: systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical ergonomics. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2018;27:1-8.
Hurley AM, Kennedy PJ, O'Connor L, Dinan TG, Cryan JF, Boylan G, et al. SOS save our surgeons: stress levels reduced by robotic surgery. Gynecol Surg. 2015;12:197-206.
Bagrodia A, Raman JD. Ergonomics considerations of radical pros- tatectomy: physician perspective of open, laparoscopic, and robot- assisted techniques. J Endourol. 2009;23:627-33.
Plerhoples TA, Hernandez-Boussard T, Wren SM. The aching sur- geon: a survey of physical discomfort and symptoms following open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2012;6:65-72.
Lawson EH, Curet MJ, Sanchez BR, Schuster R, Berguer R. Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project. J Robot Surg. 2007;1:61-7.
Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K. Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Inv Gynecol. 2015;22:234-8.
Liang Z, Gerull WD, Wang R, Zihni A, Ray S, Awad M. Effect on patient body mass index on laparoscopic surgical ergonomics. Obes Surg. 2019;29:1709-13.
AlSabah S, Al Haddad E, Khwaja H. The prevalence of musculoskele- tal injuries in bariatric surgeons. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:1818-27.
Partin AW, Adams JB, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR. Complete robot-assisted laparoscopic urologic surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg. 1995;181(6):552-7.
Kappert U, Schneider J, Cichon R, Gulielmos V, Tugtekin SM, Nicolai J, et al. Development of robotic enhanced endoscopic surgery for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2001;104(12 Suppl 1):I102-7.
Goldberg JM, Falcone T. Laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis with and without robotic assistance. Human Reprod. 2003;18(1):145-7.
Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertility Sterility. 2008;90(4):1175-79.
Semm K. New methods of pelviscopy (gynecologic lap- aroscopy) for myomectomy, ovariectomy, tubectomy and adnectomy. Endoscopy. 1979;11(2):85-93.
Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Unal E, Nezhat CH, Nezhat F. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific dream or reality? Fertility Sterility. 2009;91(6):2620-2.
Nezhat C, Saberi NS, Shahmohamady B, Nezhat F. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in gynecological surgery. J Society Laparoendoscopic Surg. 2006;10(3):317-20.
Liu C, Peresic D, Samadi D, Nezhat F. Robotic- assisted laparoscopic partial bladder resection for the treatment of infiltrating endometriosis. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(6):745-8.
M. F. Chammas Jr, F. J. Kim, A. Barbarino et al., “Asymp- tomatic rectal and bladder endometriosis: a case for robotic-assisted surgery,” The Canadian Journal of Urology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 4097-4100, 2008.
Pundir J, Omanwa K, Kovoor E, Pundir V, Lancaster G, Barton-Smith P. Laparoscopic excision versus ablation for endometriosis-associated pain: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24:747-56.
Possover M, Andersson K, Forman A. Neuropelveology: an emerging discipline for the management of chronic pelvic pain. Int J Neurourol. 2017;21:243-6.
Soto E, Luu TH, Liu X, Magrina JF, Wasson MN, Einarsson JI, et al. Laparoscopy vs. robotic surgery for endometriosis (LAROSE): a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:996-1002.
Kondo W, Bourdel N, Tamburro S, Cavoli D, Jardon K, Rabischong B, et al. Complications after surgery for deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis. BJOG. 2011;118:292-8.
Byrne D, Curnow T, Smith P, Cutner A, Saridogan E, Clark TJ. BSGE Endometriosis Centres Laparoscopic excision of deep rectovaginal endometriosis in BSGE endometriosis centres: a multicenter prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e018924.
Advincula AP, Song A, Burke W, Reynolds RK. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecolog Laparoscop. 2004;11(4):511-8.
Pitter MC, Anderson P, Blissett A, Pemberton N. Robotic-assisted gynaecological surgery-establishing train- ing criteria; minimizing operative time and blood loss. Int J Med Robotics Comp Assisted Surg. 2008;4(2):114-20.
Mao SP, Lai HC, Chang FW, Yu MH, Chang CC. Laparoscopy-assisted robotic myomectomy using the da Vinci system. Taiwanese J Obstetr Gynecol. 2007;46(2):174-6.
Bocca S, Stadtmauer L, Oehninger S. Uncomplicated full term pregnancy after da Vinci-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. Reprod BioMed Online, 2007;14(2):246-9.
Patzkowsky KE, As-Sanie S, Advincula AP. Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease. JSLS. 2013;17:100-6.
Brunes M, Johannesson U, Häbel H, Westergren Soderberg M, Ek M. Effects of obesity on peri-and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic versus conventional hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;28:228-36.
Sadashivaiah J, Ahmed D, Gul N. Anaesthetic management of robotic-assisted gynaecology surgery in the morbidly obese - a case series of 46 patients in a UK university teaching hospital. Indian J Anaesth. 2018;62:443-8.
O'Sullivan OE, O'Reilly BA. Robot-assisted surgery: impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:1163-73.
D'Souza M, Gendreau J, Feng A, Kim LH, Ho AL, Veeravagu A. Robot-assisted spine surgery: history, efficacy, cost, and future trends. Robot Surg. 2019;6:9-23.
Kurdoglu M, Unlu S, Antonetti-Elford M, Kurdoglu Z, Kilic GS. Short-term results of changes in existing and de novo lower urinary tract symptoms after robot-assisted laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrocolpopexy. Low Urin Tract Symptoms. 2019;11:71-7.
Van Zanten F, Brem C, Lenters E, Broeders IAMJ, Schrafford Koops SE. Sexual function after robot-assisted prolapse surgery: a prospective study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:905-12.
Souders C, Nik-Ahd F, Zhao H, Eilber K, Chugtai B, Anger J. Robotic sacrocolpopexy: adverse events reported to the FDA over the last decade. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30:1919-23.
Grimminck K, Mourik SL, Tjin-Asjoe F, Martens J, Aktas M. Long- term follow-up and quality of life after robot assisted sacrohysteropexy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;206:27-31.
Melamud O, Eichel L, Turbow B, Shanberg A. Laparoscopic vesicovaginal fistula repair with robotic reconstruction. Urology. 2005;65:163-6.
Occhino JA, Hokenstad ED, Linder BJ. Robot-assisted vesicovaginal fistula repair via a transvesical approach. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30:327-9.
Gallotta V, Cicero C, Conte C, Vizzielli G, Petrillo M, Fagotti A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic staging for early ovarian can- cer: a case-matched control study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24:293-8.
Moss EL, Morgan G, Martin AP, Sarhanis P, Ind T. Surgical trends, outcomes and disparities in minimal invasive surgery for patients with endometrial cancer in England: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e036222.
Iavazzo C, Gkegkes ID. Robotic technology for pelvic exenteration in cases of cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2014;125:15-7.
Obermaier A, Janda M, Baker J, Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan S, Brand A, Hogg R, et al. Improved surgical safety after laparoscopic compared to open surgery for apparent early stage endometrial cancer; results from a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1147-53.
Galaal K, Bryant A, Fisher AD, Al-Khaduri M, Kew F, Lopes AD. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD006655.
Leitao MM Jr, Bartashnik A, Wagner I, Lee SJ, Caroline A, Hoskins WJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotically assisted laparoscopy for newly diagnosed uterine cancers. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1031-7.
Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, Lewin SN, Charles AS, Kim JH, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:783-91.
Jorgensen SL, Mogensen O, Wu CS, Korsholm M, Lund K, Jensen PT. Survival after a nationwide introduction of robotic surgery in women with early-stage endometrial cancer: a population-based prospective cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2019;109:1-11.
Shazly SA, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, Gostout BS, Famuyide AO. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:457-71.
Ind TEJ, Marshall C, Kasius J, Butler J, Barton D, Nobbenhuis M. Introducing robotic radical hysterectomy for stage 1bi cervical can- cer: a prospective evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in a single UKinstitution. Int J Med Robot. 2019;15:e1970.
Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1895-904.
Melamed A, Margul DJ, Chen L, Keating NL, Del Carmen MG, Yang J, et al. Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1905-14.
European Society of Gynaecological Oncology. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: an ESGO statement; 2019. Available at: https://www.esgo. org/explore/council/laparoscopic-radical-hysterectomy-an-esgo-statement/. Accessed on 2 February 2021.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
