“Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.”
Advincula, A. P. and K. Wang (2009).
J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(3): 291-301.
Advancements in conventional laparoscopy afford gynecologists the ability to treat disease with minimally invasive interventions. Procedures such as hysterectomy are still performed predominantly via laparotomy. Instrumentation, complex disease, and steep learning curves are often cited as obstacles to minimally invasive surgery. The advent of robotic technology may provide a means to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopy through the use of 3-dimensional imaging and more dextrous and precise instruments. Current studies clearly demonstrate the feasibility and safety of applying robotics to the entire spectrum of gynecologic procedures. Rigorous scientific studies and long-term data are needed to determine the appropriate applications of robotics in gynecology. Numerous questions still exist pertaining to costs, credentialing and privileging, and training.
“Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as management for pelvic organ prolapse.”
Kramer, B. A., C. M. Whelan, et al. (2009).
Journal of Endourology 23(4): 655-658.
Background and Purpose: Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALS) is a new surgical management option for pelvic organ prolapse that secures the apex of the vagina to the sacral promontory. Limited literature exists on outcomes of this procedure. We present our initial experience with RALS. Patients and Methods: Women with vaginal vault prolapse and significant apical defects as defined by a Baden-Walker score of 3 or greater were offered RALS without any other procedure. Chart review was performed to analyze operative and perioperative data, including urodynamics (UDS) and Baden-Walker classification before and after surgery. Data were analyzed with comparison of presurgical and postsurgical data. Results: From July 2005 through July 2007, 21 patients underwent RALS. Blood loss was negligible. Average operative time, including robot docking, was 3 hours, 14minutes. Nineteen patients were discharged on postoperative day 1. UDS were not changed significantly. One patient had an apical recurrence. There were no operative complications or conversions; however, one patient had a small bowel obstruction 5 days after surgery necessitating laparotomy. Of the 21 patients, 12 have undergone anterior and posterior repair, 5 await repair, and 4 patients have opted for conservative management. Conclusions: RALS is effective to repair apical vaginal defects in patients with significant pelvic organ prolapse. Operative time is manageable and complications are few. Cystocele, rectocele, and UDS remain essentially unchanged by RALS. Most, if not all, patients with cystocele and rectocele will need further vaginal reconstruction after RALS, if desired. Greater follow-up and numbers are needed to further establish the role of this procedure. Copyright 2009, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
“[Robotic assistance in gynaecological surgery: State-of-the-art.].”
Monsarrat, N., P. Collinet, et al. (2009).
Gynecol Obstet Fertil 37(5): 415-24.
From the Automated Endoscopic System for Optimal Positioning (AESOP), a robotic arm which operates the laparoscope, to the robots Zeus and da Vinci, robotic assistance in gynaecological endoscopic surgery has continuously evolved for the last fifteen years or so. It has brought about new technical advancements: the last generation robots offer a steady three-dimensional image, improved instrument dexterity and precision, higher ergonomics and comfort for the surgeon. The da Vinci robotic system has been used without evincing any specific morbidity in various cases, notably for tubal reanastomosis, myomectomy, hysterectomy, pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy or sacrocolpopexy amongst others. Robotic assistance in gynaecology is thus feasible. Like conventional laparoscopic surgery, it allows decreased blood loss and morbidity as well as shorter hospital stay, as compared to laparotomy. It might indeed allow many surgical teams to perform minimally invasive surgical procedures which they were not used to performing by laparoscopy. Randomized prospective studies are needed to define its indications more precisely. Besides, its medico-financial impact should be evaluated too.
“Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.”
Oehler, M. K. (2009).
The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology 49(2): 124-9.
Robotic surgery is the latest development in minimal invasive surgery. It provides superior visualisation and dexterity and therefore allows the surgeon to perform complex tasks that would exceed his/her abilities with conventional laparoscopy and would be associated with an increased morbidity if performed by laparotomy. Current evidence demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this technology in gynaecology. The costs of robotic surgery remain one of the main sources of controversy but are expected to come down with further developments of the technology. If evidence-based long-term outcome evaluations show the superiority of robotic surgery in comparison to conventional laparoscopic and open surgery, this technology will have a major impact on gynaecological surgery.
“Vaginal robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (VRARH) after laparoscopic staging: feasibility and operative results.”
Oleszczuk, A., C. Köhler, et al. (2009).
The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS 5(1): 38-44.
BACKGROUND: To describe a technique of vaginal robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (VRARH) that utilizes the advantages of a robotic system and eliminates the manipulation of cancer tissue. METHODS: A prospective study was performed for VRARH using the da Vinci robotic surgical system in 12 patients. The procedure was indicated in patients with cervical cancer stage FIGO IB1 after laparoscopic lymphadenectomy. A tumour-adapted vaginal cuff was created transvaginally. RESULTS: All operations were completed with minimal blood loss (mean 123 ml). The mean operative time including para-aortic lympadenectomy was 356 min, the vaginal cuff creation took 43 min and the radical robotic resection 68 min. No uterine manipulator was used. There were no bladder or bowel complications and no conversion to standard laparoscopy or laparotomy. CONCLUSIONS: The VRARH technique combines the advantages of the vaginal route and robotic laparoscopic surgery: tumour contamination is avoided and complications are minimized. This procedure could be superior to techniques described previously.
“The impact of robotics on practice management of endometrial cancer: transitioning from traditional surgery.”
Hoekstra, A. V., A. Jairam-Thodla, et al. (2009).
The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the impact of a new robotic surgery programme on perioperative outcomes for endometrial cancer METHODS: A prospective database of all patients undergoing staging for endometrial cancer during July 2007-July 2008 was collected and analysed. Demographic data and perioperative outcomes were compared between cases performed via laparotomy, laparoscopy and robotics. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients underwent staging during the time of data collection (LAP-26, LSC-7, ROB-32). No difference in surgical volume in the year before vs. after robotics was identified. Median operative time for robotics and laparotomy was significantly less than for laparoscopy (p = 0.023). There was no significant difference in lymph node yields between the three groups (p = 0.92). Robotics was associated with significantly less blood loss (p < 0.0001). Complication rates were significantly lower in the robotic group compared to the laparotomy group (p = 0.05). Median hospital stay was 1 day for the minimally invasive groups. Total number of perioperative inpatient days decreased from 331 to 150 in one year. Practice management of endometrial cancer transitioned from a predominantly open approach (5.6% LSC) to robotics (11% LSC, 49% ROB) within 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery dramatically altered our management of endometrial cancer and was associated with a significant improvement in several perioperative outcomes when compared to laparotomy and laparoscopy. Copyright (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
“Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: Impact on fellowship training.”
Hoekstra, A. V., J. M. Morgan, et al. (2009).
Gynecologic Oncology.
OBJECTIVES: To report the impact of a new robotic surgery program on the surgical training of gynecologic oncology fellows over a 12 month period of time. METHODS: A robotic surgery program was introduced into the gynecologic oncology fellowship program at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in June 2007. A database of patients undergoing surgical management of endometrial and cervical cancer between July 2007 and July 2008 was collected and analyzed. Changes in fellow surgical training were measured and analyzed. RESULTS: Fellow surgical training for endometrial and cervical cancer underwent a dramatic transition in 12 months. The proportion of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery increased from 3.3% (4/110 patients) to 43.5% (47/108 patients). Fellow training transitioned from primarily an open approach (94.4%) to a minimally invasive approach (11% laparoscopic, 49% robotic, 40% open) for endometrial cancer stagings, and from an open approach (100%) to an open (50%) and robotic (50%) approach for radical hysterectomies. Fellow participation in robotic procedures increased from 45% in the first 3 months to 72% within 6 months, and 92% by 12 months. The role of the fellow in robotic cases transitioned from bedside assistant to console operator within 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Fellow surgical training underwent a dramatic change with the introduction of a robotic surgery program. The management of endometrial and cervical cancer was impacted the most by robotics. Robotic surgery broadened fellowship surgical training, but balanced surgical training and standardized fellow training modules remain challenges for fellowship programs.
“Early experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopy for extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy up to the left renal vein.”
Narducci, F., E. Lambaudie, et al. (2009).
Gynecologic Oncology.
OBJECTIVE: To describe our early experience with robotic-assisted laparoscopy for extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy up to the left renal vein, including Da Vinci robot positioning. METHODS: Six patients underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopy using the Da Vinci apparatus. The patients included a man with a pT2 non-seminomatous germ cell tumour of the left testicle treated by chemotherapy with an incomplete response (mature teratoma), four women with locally advanced cervical cancer, and one case of bulky cancer of the vaginal cuff. The procedure was carried out using four port sites: one for the camera, one each for the no. 1 and no. 3 arms of the Da Vinci robot system, and one for the assistant. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted lymphadenectomy carried out using the Da Vinci system was safe and effective with a short learning period for an experienced oncological team. A larger prospective study is now required to evaluate this procedure further.
“Robotic Surgery: Changing the Surgical Approach for Endometrial Cancer in a referral Cancer Center.”
Peiretti, M., V. Zanagnolo, et al. (2009).
Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of robotic surgery on the surgical approach to endometrial cancer in a gynecologic oncology center over a short time. DESIGN: Prospective analysis of patients with early-stage endometrial cancer who underwent robotic surgery. SETTING: Teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Eighty patients who underwent robotic surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Between November 2006 and October 2008, 80 consecutive patients with an initial diagnosis of endometrial cancer consented to undergo robotic surgery at the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We collected all patient data for demographics, operating time, estimated blood loss, histologic findings, lymph node count, analgesic-free postoperative day, length of stay, and intraoperative and early postoperative complications. Mean (SD) patient age was 58.3 (11.5) years (95% confidence interval [CI], 55.7-60.9). Body mass index was 25.2 (6.1) kg/m(2) (95% CI, 23.6-26.7). In 3 patients (3.7%), conversion to conventional laparotomy was required. Mean operative time was 181.1 (63.1) minutes (95% CI, 166.7-195.5). Mean docking time was 4.5 (1.1) minutes (95% CI, 2.2-2.7). Mean hospital stay was 2.5 (1.1) days (95% CI, 2.2-2.7), and 93% of patients were analgesic-free on postoperative day 2. CONCLUSIONS: Over a relatively short time using the da Vinci surgical system, we observed a substantial change in our surgical activity. For endometrial cancer, open surgical procedures decreased from 78% to 35%. Moreover, our preliminary data confirm that surgical robotic staging for early-stage endometrial cancer is feasible and safe. Age, obesity, and previous surgery do not seem to be contraindications.