{"paper_id":"7693429c-406f-4b7e-bc27-facfae79f5f7","body_text":"Abstract\nThe use of computers to assist surgeons in the operating room has been an inevitable evolution in the modern practice of surgery. Robotic assisted surgery has been evolving now for over two decades and has finally matured into a technology that has caused a monumental shift in the way gynecologic surgeries are performed. Prior to robotics, the only minimally invasive options for most gynecologic procedures including hysterectomies were either vaginal or laparoscopic approaches. However, even with over 100 years of vaginal surgery experience and more than 20 years of laparoscopic advancements, most gynecologic surgeries in the United States were still performed through an open incision. That changed in 2005 with the introduction of the da Vinci Surgical Robot™ for gynecology. Over the last decade, the trend across the country has now dramatically shifted to less open and more minimally invasive procedures. Robotic assisted procedures now include not only hysterectomy but also most all other commonly performed gynecologic procedures including myomectomies, pelvic support procedures, and reproductive surgeries. This success however has not been without controversies particularly around costs and complications. The evolution of computers to assist surgeons and make minimally invasive procedures more common is clearly a trend that is sustainable. It is now incumbent on surgeons, hospitals, and medical societies to determine the most cost-efficient and productive use for this technology.\nReferences\nAAGL Guidelines: Guidelines for Privileging for Robotic-Assisted Gynecologic Laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(2).\nACOG technology assessment in obstetrics and gynecology No. 6: robot-assisted surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1153–5.\nAdvincula A. Editorial: robotics in gynecology. Is the glass half empty or half full? Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:3–4.\nAdvincula AP, Song A. The role of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:331–6. doi:10.1097/GCO.0b013e328216f90b.\nAdvincula AP, Song A, Burke W, Reynolds KR. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2004;11(4):511–8.\nAdvincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau S, Ransom SB. Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2, part 1):256–65.\nAgcaoglu O, Aliyev S, Taskin HE, et al. Malfunction and failure of robotic systems during general surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:3580–3.\nAndoniN S, Okeke Z, Okeke DA. Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of FDA MAUDE database. Can J Urol. 2008;15(1):3912–6.\nAscher-Walsh CJ, Capes TL. Robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with limited numbers of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:306–10.\nBarakat EE, Bedaiwy MA, Zimberg S, MNutter B, Nosseir M, Falcone T. Robotic assisted laparoscopic and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2, Pt 1):256–65.\nBell MC, Torgenson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S. Comparison of outcomes and costs for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparososcopy and robotic technique. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:407–11.\nBurkett D, Horwit J, Kennedy V, Murphy D, Graziano S, Kenton K. Assessing current trends in resident hysterectomy training. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(5):210–4. doi:10.1097/SPV.0b013e3182309a22.\nCarreyrou J. Surgical robot examined in injuries. The Wall Street Journal. 2010. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304703104575173952145907526. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.\nCDC-MMWR: Hysterectomy Surveillance-1994-99 July, 2002/51 (SS05); 1–8.\nDharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(4):175–1179.\nDickersin K, Munro M, Clark M, for the Surgical Treatments Outcomes Project for Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding (STOP-DUB) Research Group, et al. Hysterectomy compared with endometrial ablation for dysfunctional uterine bleeding: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:1279–89. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000292083.97478.3.\nEarly HW. Complications of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy in obese women. OB-GYN Surv. 1995;50(11):795.\nEstape R, Lambrou N, Diaz R, Estape E, Dunkin N, Rivera A. A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:357–61.\nEstate of Fred Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical Inc., 09-2-03136-5, Superior Court. State of Washington, Kitsap County (Port Orchard). n.d.\nFalcone T, Goldberg J, Garcia-Ruiz A, Margossian H, Stevens L. Full robotic assistance for laparoscopic tubal anastamosis: a case report. J Laparosc Adv Surg Technol. 1999;9(1):107–13. doi:10.1089/lap.1999.9.107.\nFinan MA, Rocconi RP. Overcoming technical challenges with robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1256–60.\nGargiulo AR. Fertility preservation and the role of robotics. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54(3):431–48.\nGawande A. The checklist Manifesto: how to get things right. New York: Henry Holt & Company; 2011.\nGehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A, Abaid LN, Mendivil A, Boggess JF. What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:41–5.\nGeller EJ, Siddiquiu NY, Barnett JC, Visco AG. Shot term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1201–6.\nGiudice LC. Endometriosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2389–98. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1000274.\nHart RJ, Hickey M, Maouris P, Buckett W, Garry R. Excisional surgery versus ablative surgery for ovarian endometriomas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;3:CD004992.\nHerron DM, Michael Marohn M. The SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group3: a consensus document on robotic surgery. 2007. http://www.sages.org/publications/guidelines/consensus-document-robotic-surgery/. Accessed 16 Dec 2015.\nJacobsen, et al. Hysterectomy for benign indications. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1278–83.\nJohn NP, Hummelshoi L. Consensus on current management of endometriosis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(6):1552–68.\nKapetanakis V, Jacob K, Klauschie J, Kho R, Magrina J. Robotic presacral neurectomy – technique and results. Int J Med Rob Comput Assist Surg. 2012;8(1):73–6. doi:10.1002/rcs.438.\nKim WT, Ham WS, Jeong W, et al. Failure and malfunction of da Vinci Surgical systems during various robotic surgeries: experience from six departments at a single institute. Urology. 2009;74:1234–7.\nKoo YJ, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Vaginal cuff dehiscence after hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;122(3):248–52. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.04.004.\nLendvay TS, Kowalski T. Crowd sourcing to assess surgical skills. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(11):1–2. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.2405.\nLenihan JP. Navigating credentialing, privileging, and learning curves in robotics with an evidence and experienced-based approach. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54(3):382–90. doi:10.1097/GRF.0b013e31822b47e2.\nLenihan J. Flight plan for robotic surgery credentialing: new AAGL guidelines. OBG Manag. 2014;26(11):44–8.\nLenihan JP, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:589–94.\nLiberman D, Trinh QD, Jeldres C, Zorn K. Is robotic surgery cost-effective: yes. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(1):61–5. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e32834d543f.\nLim PC, Crane JT, English EJ, et al. Outcomes of robotic assisted hysterectomy from experienced robotic surgeons. Int J of Gynecol Obstet. 2016;133(3):359–364.\nLue JR, Pyrzak A, Allen J. Improving accuracy of intraoperative diagnosis of endometriosis: role of firefly in minimal access robotic surgery. J Minim Access Surg. 2015. http://www.journalofmas.com/preprintarticle.asp?id=158969;type=0. Accessed online 22 Dec 2015.\nMagrina JF, Espada M, Munoz MR, Noble BN, Kho RM. Robotic adnexectomy compared with laparoscopy for adnexal mass. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):581–4.\nMagrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Noble BN, Kho RM, Magtibay P. Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:100–5.\nManoucheri E, Fuchs-Weizman N, Cohen SL, Wang KC, Einarsson J. MAUDE: analysis of robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery. 2013. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):592–5. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2013.12.122.\nMartino MA, Berger EA, McFetridge JT, et al. A comparison of quality outcome measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: robotic vs. non-robotic approaches. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:389–39.\nOcchino JA, Myer EL, Singh R, Gebhart JB. Surgical and non-surgical education practices in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellowships within the United States. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;3 No.4 article # 33234, 8 pages. doi:10.4236/ojog.2013.34A004.\nOstrom C. Failed robotic surgery focus of Kitsap trial. Seattle Times. www.seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020918732_robottrialxml.html. Published May 3, 2013. Accessed 22 Dec 2015.\nParaiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1005–13.\nPatzkowsky KE, As-Sanie S, Smorgick N, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease. JSLS. 2013;17:100–6.\nPayne TN, Dauterive FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:286–91.\nPayne TN, Dauterive FR, Pitter MC, Giep HN, Giep BN, Grogg TW, Shanbour KA, Goff DW, Hubert HB. Robotically assisted hysterectomy in patients with large uteri: outcomes in five community practices. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:535–42. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181cf45ad.\nPinion SB, Parkin DE, Abramovich DR, Naji A, Alexander DA, Russell IT, Kitchener HC. Randomised trial of hysterectomy, endometrial laser ablation, and transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. BMJ. 1994;309. doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6960.979.\nPitter MC, Gargiulo AR, Bonaventura LM, Lehman JS, Srouji SS. Pregnancy outcomes following robot-assisted myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:99–108. doi:10.1093/humrep/des365.\nPloumidis A, Spinoit AF, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Gan M, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: surgical technique and outcomes at a single high-volume institution. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):138–45.\nRardin CR. The debate over robotics in benign gynecology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(5):418–22. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.016.\nReich H. New techniques in advanced laparoscopic surgery. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;3(3):655–81.\nRoss JW, Preston M. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for severe vaginal vault prolapse: five year outcome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(3):221–6.\nScheib S, et al. Laparoscopy in the morbidly obese: physiologic considerations and surgical techniques to optimize success. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;21:180–96.\nSeamon LG, Cohn DE, Richardson DL, et al. Robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1207–13.\nSert MB, Abeler V. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: comparison with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy; one surgeon’s experience at the Norwegian Radium Hospital. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:600–4.\nShakiba K, Bena JF, McGill KM, Minger J, Falcone T. Surgical treatment of endometriosis: a 7-year follow-up on the requirement for further surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(6):1285–92.\nSong JB, Vemana G, Mobley JM, Bhayani SB. The second “time-out”: a surgical safety checklist for lengthy robotic surgeries. Patient Saf Surg. 2013;7(1):19–21.\nUccella S, Ceccaroni M, Cromi A, Malzoni M, Berretta R, De Iaco P, Roviglione G, Bogani G, Minelli L, Ghezzi F. Vaginal cuff dehiscence in a series of 12,398 hysterectomies: effect of different types of colpotomy and vaginal closure. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(3):516–23.\nVeljovich DS, Paley PJ, Drescher CW, Everett EN, Shah C, Peters WA. Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(6):679 e9–10.\nWallenstein MR, et al. Effects of surgical volume on outcomes for laproscopic hysterectomy for benign conditions. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(4):710–6.\nWoelk JL, Casiano ER, Weaver AL, Gostout BS, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB. The learning curve of robotic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(1):87–95. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31827a029e.\nWright JD, Herzog TJ, Tsui J, Ananth CV, et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013a;122(2 0 1):233–41. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318299a6cf.\nWright JD, Anath CV, Lewin SN, et al. Robotically assisted vs. laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013b;309:689–98.\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nCorresponding author\nEditor information\nEditors and Affiliations\nRights and permissions\nCopyright information\n© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG\nAbout this entry\nCite this entry\nLenihan, J.P. (2016). Robotic Surgery in Gynecology: Indications, Advantages, Avoiding Complications. In: Shoupe, D. (eds) Handbook of Gynecology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17002-2_55-1\nDownload citation\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17002-2_55-1\nReceived:\nAccepted:\nPublished:\nPublisher Name: Springer, Cham\nPrint ISBN: 978-3-319-17002-2\nOnline ISBN: 978-3-319-17002-2\neBook Packages: Living Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine\nKeywords\nPublish with us\nChapter history\n-\nLatest\nRobotic Surgery in Gynecology: Indications, Advantages, Avoiding Complications- Published:\n- 14 July 2017\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17002-2_55-2\n-\nOriginal\nRobotic Surgery in Gynecology: Indications, Advantages, Avoiding Complications- Published:\n- 10 February 2017\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17002-2_55-1","source_license":"CC0","license_restricted":false}