Hands behind the Robo- Application of Robotic Surgery in the treatment of Endometriosis - View point of an Indian Obgyn Fellow in USA.

In: International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2015 · pp. 1 · doi:10.5455/2320-1770.ijrcog20150236 · W2325860649
article OA: diamond CC0
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-11

This observational study analyzed perioperative outcomes in 29 women with stage 2 and 3 endometriosis treated with robot-assisted laparoscopy, finding it safe with minimal blood loss and shorter hospital stays.

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

AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-11 · read from full text

This observational experience reports peri-operative outcomes from a retrospective review of 29 women with stage 2 or 3 endometriosis treated with robot-assisted laparoscopy in a gynecology department in Miami, USA. Pre-operative time, console time, total operative time, blood loss, and peri-operative complications were recorded, with patients also characterized by symptoms (e.g., chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia) and CA-125 levels. The paper reports mean age 42 ± 8 years, mean operative time 64.7 minutes, and mean blood loss 40 ml, concluding that robotic surgery was safe with minimal blood loss and shorter hospital stay, while noting variability in surgical infrastructure and technology between settings. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it describes robotic-assisted laparoscopy outcomes for stage 2–3 endometriosis based on the experience of an Indian OBGYN fellow in the USA.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Background: This article is an observational experience of robotic surgery in USA by an Indian Obgyn fellow. Primary objective is to analyze retrospectively peri operative outcomes in stage 2 and 3 Endometriosis treated with robot assisted laparoscopy. Secondary objective is to report an Indian Obgyn, Physician observer fellows experience in USA with Robotic surgery. Methods: 29 women underwent robotic surgery at in the department of gynecology at Doctor’s hospital, Baptist health, Miami. Pre-op time, console time, total operative time, blood loss, peri-operative complications noted. Results: Mean age is 42 ± 8 years with BMI of 26.2 ± 8 kg/m 2 . Eighteen patients (62%) were age 40 and above. Twenty patients (69%) presented with chronic pelvic pain. Dyspareunia in 16 (55.2%), bloating in five (17.2%) and pelvic mass in thirteen (44.8%) Unilateral pelvic mass in nine patients (31 %) and bilateral in four patients (13.8%). CA 125 levels are elevated in nine patients (31%) and significantly higher with endometriomas (76.1 ± 49.2 U/ml). 38% underwent robot assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and BSO. 14.8% underwent robot assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with Robot (LSO/RSO). Mean operative time 64.7 min. Mean blood loss 40 ml. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is safe, with minimal blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Alike in the surgical techniques, though diverse in the work infrastructure and technology, East and West have common scenarios which can be tackled with exchange of training opportunities. This interchange of knowledge and skills will benefit patients with increased surgeon’s efficiency.
Full text 5,251 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 6 sections · click to expand

Keywords

Endometriosis, Robotic surgery, Surgical outcomes, da vinci, Minimal invasive surgeryAbstract

Background

This article is an observational experience of robotic surgery in USA by an Indian Obgyn fellow. Primary objective is to analyze retrospectively peri operative outcomes in stage 2 and 3 Endometriosis treated with robot assisted laparoscopy. Secondary objective is to report an Indian Obgyn, Physician observer fellows experience in USA with Robotic surgery.

Methods

29 women underwent robotic surgery at in the department of gynecology at Doctor’s hospital, Baptist health, Miami. Pre-op time, console time, total operative time, blood loss, peri-operative complications noted.

Results

Mean age is 42 ± 8 years with BMI of 26.2 ± 8 kg/m2. Eighteen patients (62%) were age 40 and above. Twenty patients (69%) presented with chronic pelvic pain. Dyspareunia in 16 (55.2%), bloating in five (17.2%) and pelvic mass in thirteen (44.8%) Unilateral pelvic mass in nine patients (31 %) and bilateral in four patients (13.8%). CA 125 levels are elevated in nine patients (31%) and significantly higher with endometriomas (76.1 ± 49.2 U/ml). 38% underwent robot assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and BSO. 14.8% underwent robot assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with Robot (LSO/RSO). Mean operative time 64.7 min. Mean blood loss 40 ml.

Conclusions

Robotic surgery is safe, with minimal blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Alike in the surgical techniques, though diverse in the work infrastructure and technology, East and West have common scenarios which can be tackled with exchange of training opportunities. This interchange of knowledge and skills will benefit patients with increased surgeon’s efficiency. Metrics

References

Catenacci M, Flyckt RL, Falcone T. Robotics in reproductive surgery: strengths and limitations. Placenta. 2011;32(3):232-7. Endometriosis Research Center. Understanding endometriosis: past, present and future, 2005. The National Women’s health Information Council. Available at: http://www.4woman.gov/HealthPro/healtharticle/march.htm. Nezhat C, Lewis M, Kotikela S, Veeraswamy A, Saadat L, Hajhosseini B, et al. Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2758-60. Giudice LC, Kao LC. Endometriosis. Lancet. 2004;364:1789-99. Nezhat C, Hajhosseini B, King LP. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic treatment of bowel, bladder, and ureteral endometriosis. JSLS. 2011 Jul-Sep;15(3):387-92. Joel Cardenas-Goicoechea, Sarah Adams, Suneel B. Bhat, Thomas C. Randall. Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center. Gynecol Oncol. 2010 May;117(2):224-8. Cheng YM, Wang ST, Chou CY. Serum CA-125 in preoperative patients at high risk for endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:375-80. Liu C, Perisic D, Samadi D, Nezhat F. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic partial bladder resection for the treatment of infiltrating endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008 Nov-Dec;15(6):745-8. Ercoli A, D’asta M, Fagotti A, Fanfani F, Romano F, Baldazzi G, et al. Robotic treatment of colorectal endometriosis: technique, feasibility and short-term results. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(3):722-6. Ness RB, Cramer DW, Goodman MT, Kjaer SK, Mallin K, Mosgaard BJ, et al. Infertility, fertility drugs, and ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155:217-24. Brinton LA, Sakoda LC, Sherman ME, Frederiksen K, Kjaer SK, Graubard BI, et al. Relationship of benign gynecologic diseases to subsequent risk of ovarian and uterine tumors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:2929-35. Magrina JF. Robotic surgery in gynecology. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007;28(2):77-82. Leddy, Laura Sigismund, Thomas S. Lendvay, Richard M. Satava. Robotic surgery: applications and cost effectiveness. Open Access Surg. 2010;3:99-107. Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW. Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:1633-9. Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecological surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):589-94. Lasser MS, Patel CK, Elsamra SE, Renzulli JF, Haleblian GE, Pareek G. Dedicated robotics team reduces pre-surgical preparation time. Indian J Urol. 2012;28:263-6. Sutton CJG, Ewen SP, Whitelaw N, Haines P. Prospective, randomized, double blind controlled trial of laser laparoscopy in the treatment of pelvic pain associated with minimal, mild and moderate endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 1994;62;696-700. Parker JD, Sinaii N, Sears JH, Godoy H, Winkel C, Stratton P. Adhesion formation after laparoscopic excision of endometriosis and lysis of adhesions. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1457-61. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Unal E, Nezhat CH, Nezhat F. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific dream or reality? Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2620-2. Nezhat C, Saberi NS, Shahmohamady B, Nezhat F. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in gynecological surgery. JSLS. 2006;10(3):317-20.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosischronic_pelvic_paindyspareunia

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 (23)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK