Surgical Frontiers: A Comparative Review of Robotics Versus Laparoscopy in Gynecological Interventions

Overview

Journal Cureus

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2024 Jan 1

PMID 38161931

Authors

Nainita Patel

Kamlesh Chaudhari

Garapati Jyotsna

Jalormy S Joshi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This review comprehensively examines the current state and future directions of gynecological surgery, focusing on the comparative analysis of laparoscopy and robotic surgery. The overview highlights the evolution of these surgical techniques, emphasizing their impact on patient outcomes, procedural efficiency, and safety profiles. The analysis encompasses critical factors such as cost-effectiveness, learning curves, and implications for postoperative recovery. The future of gynecological surgery is envisioned through emerging technologies, including augmented reality, single-incision laparoscopy, and artificial intelligence. The coexistence of laparoscopy and robotics is explored, acknowledging their respective strengths and roles in shaping women's healthcare. In conclusion, the dynamic nature of the field is underscored, emphasizing the need for a patient-centered and adaptable approach. Collaboration between healthcare professionals, engineers, and researchers is pivotal in unlocking these innovations' full potential, ensuring continued advancements in gynecological surgery for improved outcomes and enhanced patient care.

Citing Articles

Role of Mesenteric Defect Closure in Preventing Internal Hernias After Ileocecectomy With Kono-S Anastomosis.

Louis M, Grabill N, Khan F, Williams J, Jackson T Cureus. 2025; 17(1):e77585.

PMID: 39958003 PMC: 11830378. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.77585.

Anterior Colporrhaphy and Paravaginal Repair for Anterior Compartment Prolapse: A Review.

Tsui W, Ding D Medicina (Kaunas). 2024; 60(11).

PMID: 39597050 PMC: 11596843. DOI: 10.3390/medicina60111865.

Surgical Technique and Fertility Outcomes: A Comprehensive Review of Open and Laparoscopic Cystectomy in Women of Reproductive Age.

Sethi N, Agrawal M, Patel A, Reddy L, Bhatt D Cureus. 2024; 16(10):e71179.

PMID: 39525144 PMC: 11550112. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.71179.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Hirschsprung Disease: Current Practices and Future Directions.

Almadhoun M, Morcos R, Alsadoun L, Bokhari S, Ahmed Z, Khilji F Cureus. 2024; 16(8):e66444.

PMID: 39246990 PMC: 11380471. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.66444.

From Meshes to Minimally Invasive Techniques: A Comprehensive Review of Modern Hernia Repair Approaches.

Hatewar A, Mahakalkar C, Kshirsagar S, Ram Sohan P, Dixit S, Bikkumalla S Cureus. 2024; 16(8):e66206.

PMID: 39233930 PMC: 11374351. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.66206.

References

Tsakos E, Xydias E, Ziogas A, Sorrentino F, Nappi L, Vlachos N . Multi-Port Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Clinical and Fertility Outcomes. J Clin Med. 2023; 12(12). PMC: 10299339. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12124134. View

Jallad K, Walters M . Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) in Gynecology. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 60(2):324-329. DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000280. View

Garbarino G, Costa G, Frezza B, Biancafarina A, Balducci G, Mercantini P . Robotic versus open oncological gastric surgery in the elderly: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Robot Surg. 2020; 15(5):741-749. PMC: 8423642. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-020-01168-2. View

Alshowaikh K, Karpinska-Leydier K, Amirthalingam J, Paidi G, Iroshani Jayarathna A, Salibindla D . Surgical and Patient Outcomes of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2021; 13(8):e16828. PMC: 8336353. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.16828. View

Sim Khor W, Baker B, Amin K, Chan A, Patel K, Wong J . Augmented and virtual reality in surgery-the digital surgical environment: applications, limitations and legal pitfalls. Ann Transl Med. 2017; 4(23):454. PMC: 5220044. DOI: 10.21037/atm.2016.12.23. View

Madhok B, Nanayakkara K, Mahawar K . Safety considerations in laparoscopic surgery: A narrative review. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2022; 14(1):1-16. PMC: 8788169. DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v14.i1.1. View

Bethea B, Okamura A, Kitagawa M, Fitton T, Cattaneo S, Gott V . Application of haptic feedback to robotic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2004; 14(3):191-5. PMC: 1283126. DOI: 10.1089/1092642041255441. View

Kumar P, Rammohan R, Chavan M, Ghyar R, Deshpande S, Kulkarni J . Surgeon perception of factors affecting the efficiency of conventional and robotic laparoscopy: A Pan India study. Heliyon. 2023; 8(12):e12561. PMC: 9813728. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12561. View

Bankar G, Keoliya A . Robot-Assisted Surgery in Gynecology. Cureus. 2022; 14(9):e29190. PMC: 9572807. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.29190. View

10.

Gordon W, Ikoma N, Lyu H, Jackson G, Landman A . Protecting procedural care-cybersecurity considerations for robotic surgery. NPJ Digit Med. 2022; 5(1):148. PMC: 9489690. DOI: 10.1038/s41746-022-00693-8. View

11.

Marino P, Houvenaeghel G, Narducci F, Boyer-Chammard A, Ferron G, Uzan C . Cost-Effectiveness of Conventional vs Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopy in Gynecologic Oncologic Indications. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015; 25(6):1102-8. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000458. View

12.

Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J . Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017; 318(16):1569-1580. PMC: 5818805. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.7219. View

13.

Jiang W, Xu J, Xing J, Qiu H, Wang Z, Kang L . Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopy-Assisted vs Open Surgery for Patients With Low Rectal Cancer: The LASRE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2022; . PMC: 9478880. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.4079. View

14.

Andou M, Yanai S, Shirane A, Kanno K . Laparoscopic Myomectomy. Surg J (N Y). 2020; 6(Suppl 1):S35-S43. PMC: 7214085. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3401027. View

15.

Leijte E, de Blaauw I, van Workum F, Rosman C, Botden S . Robot assisted versus laparoscopic suturing learning curve in a simulated setting. Surg Endosc. 2019; 34(8):3679-3689. PMC: 7326898. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07263-2. View

16.

Watrowski R, Kostov S, Alkatout I . Complications in laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery: definitions, classifications, incidence and risk factors - an up-to-date review. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2021; 16(3):501-525. PMC: 8512506. DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2021.108800. View

17.

Fahlenkamp D, Rassweiler J, Fornara P, Frede T, Loening S . Complications of laparoscopic procedures in urology: experience with 2,407 procedures at 4 German centers. J Urol. 1999; 162(3 Pt 1):765-70; discussion 770-1. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199909010-00038. View

18.

Holeva V, Nikopoulou V, Lytridis C, Bazinas C, Kechayas P, Sidiropoulos G . Effectiveness of a Robot-Assisted Psychological Intervention for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2022; 54(2):577-593. PMC: 9638397. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-022-05796-5. View

19.

Williamson T, Song S . Robotic Surgery Techniques to Improve Traditional Laparoscopy. JSLS. 2022; 26(2). PMC: 9135605. DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2022.00002. View

20.

Einarsson J, Suzuki Y . Total laparoscopic hysterectomy: 10 steps toward a successful procedure. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 2(1):57-64. PMC: 2673000. View