Robotics in reproduction, fertility preservation, and ovarian transplantation

In: Robotic Surgery: Research and Reviews · 2017 · vol. Volume 4 , pp. 19–24 · doi:10.2147/rsrr.s123703 · PMID:30697560 · PMC6193444 · W2593522610
review OA: gold CC0
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08

This review examines the current applications, benefits, and drawbacks of robotic technology in reproductive surgery, focusing on its role in fertility preservation and ovarian transplantation.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Robotic technology is one of the most promising and rapidly developing advancements of the twenty-first century with a potential to make significant contributions to reproductive surgery and preservation of fertility. Along with the major advances in cancer therapy, the number of female cancer survivors of reproductive age has dramatically increased. As a consequence, fertility preservation has gained more emphasis in reproductive science in the last few decades. A broad range of surgical procedures such as tubal reanastomosis, ovarian transposition, radical trachelectomy, and ovarian transplantation has been introduced to restore or preserve fertility in selected patients. These procedures can be accomplished through various surgical routes, including open surgery and minimally invasive approaches. In this review, we aim to present the current applications, advantages, and disadvantages of robotic technology in the field of reproductive surgery with a special interest in ovarian transplantation for fertility preservation.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (57)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-11T06:19:48.454388+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK