» Articles » PMID: 22190948

Robotic Surgery in Gynecology: an Updated Systematic Review

Overview
Publisher Wiley
Date 2011 Dec 23
PMID 22190948
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The introduction of da Vinci Robotic Surgery to the field of Gynecology has resulted in large changes in surgical management. The robotic platform allows less experienced laparoscopic surgeons to perform more complex procedures. In general gynecology and reproductive gynecology, the robot is being increasingly used for procedures such as hysterectomies, myomectomies, adnexal surgery, and tubal anastomosis. Among urogynecology the robot is being utilized for sacrocolopexies. In the field of gynecologic oncology, the robot is being increasingly used for hysterectomies and lymphadenectomies in oncologic diseases. Despite the rapid and widespread adoption of robotic surgery in gynecology, there are no randomized trials comparing its efficacy and safety to other traditional surgical approaches. Our aim is to update previously published reviews with a focus on only comparative observational studies. We determined that, with the right amount of training and skill, along with appropriate patient selection, robotic surgery can be highly advantageous. Patients will likely have less blood loss, less post-operative pain, faster recoveries, and fewer complications compared to open surgery and potentially even laparoscopy. However, until larger, well-designed observational studies or randomized control trials are completed which report long-term outcomes, we cannot definitively state the superiority of robotic surgery over other surgical methods.

Citing Articles

Robotic Rectus Abdominis Myoperitoneal Flap for Posterior Vaginal Wall Reconstruction: Experience at a Single Institution.

Iftekhar N, Cataldo K, Seo S, Allen B, Giles C, Kelecy M J Clin Med. 2025; 14(1.

PMID: 39797374 PMC: 11721532. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14010292.


Identifying key predictors for uterine manipulator use in robotic simple hysterectomy: a retrospective cohort analysis.

Kawamura S, Ota K, Ota Y, Takahashi T, Fujiwara H, Tasaka K Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1462632.

PMID: 39323475 PMC: 11422147. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1462632.


Comparison of postoperative pain in robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

Wu Y, Hong M, Ding D J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):345.

PMID: 39311983 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02105-3.


A Comprehensive Review on Comparative Analysis of Operative Efficiency and Postoperative Recovery in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy.

Khan M, Mahakalkar C, Kshirsagar S, Dhole S, Dixit S Cureus. 2024; 16(8):e67262.

PMID: 39301383 PMC: 11412269. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.67262.


Exploring the Evolution of Robotic Surgery in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Past, Present, and Future Perspectives.

Yadav P, Chaudhari K, Dave A, Sindhu A Cureus. 2024; 16(3):e57155.

PMID: 38681448 PMC: 11055614. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57155.


References
1.
Fanning J, Fenton B, Purohit M . Robotic radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 198(6):649.e1-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.002. View

2.
Walker J, Piedmonte M, Spirtos N, Eisenkop S, Schlaerth J, Mannel R . Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(32):5331-6. PMC: 2773219. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248. View

3.
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(1):107-13. DOI: 10.1089/lap.1999.9.107. View

4.
Field J, Benoit M, Dinh T, Diaz-Arrastia C . Computer-enhanced robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Surg Endosc. 2006; 21(2):244-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-006-0894-6. View

5.
Boyles S, Weber A, Meyn L . Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188(1):108-15. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.101. View