Robot-assisted surgery in gynecology

The development of robotic technology has facilitated the application of minimally invasive techniques for complex gynecologic surgery. Robot-assisted gynecologic surgery has grown exponentially since receiving Food and Drug Administration approval for use in gynecologic surgery in 2005. Robotic surgery has several major advantages, including three-dimensional visual magnification, articulation beyond normal manipulation, and the filtering of the operator's hand tremors. Therefore, robotic surgery is suitable for microsurgery, and it could be an alternative option for laparotomy. Robotic surgery has advantages, especially for suture-intensive operations such as myomectomy. Patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy had significantly decreased estimated blood loss, complication rates, and length of hospital stay. The advantages of robotic surgery help to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy, especially for complicated procedures in deep infiltrating endometriosis. Although extensive radical operations for deep infiltrating endometriosis of the bowel and urinary tract, such as segmental resections of the bladder, ureters, and bowel, were performed by laparotomy in the past, they are now performed more easily and more effectively using robotic techniques. In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy resulted in similar clinical outcomes, but robotic surgery was associated with a longer operation time and higher costs. Robotic and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy show equivalent surgical and clinical outcomes. Compared to laparotomy, robotic gynecologic cancer surgery results in improved clinical outcomes and comparable oncologic outcomes. If robotic surgery is tailored in terms of patient selection, surgeon ability, and equipment availability, it could be a feasible option for highly advanced minimally invasive surgery.

1. Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, Hayati S. A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1988; 35:153–160. 2. Davies BL, Hibberd RD, Ng WS, Timoney AG, Wickham JE. The development of a surgeon robot for prostatectomies. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1991; 205:35–38. 3. Paul HA, Bargar WL, Mittlestadt B, Musits B, Taylor RH, Kazanzides P, Zuhars J, Williamson B, Hanson W. Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992; (285):57–66. 4. 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; 9:107–113. 5. Iavazzo C, Mamais I, Gkegkes ID. Robotic assisted vs laparoscopic and/or open myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical evidence. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016; 294:5–17. 6. Pitter MC, Gargiulo AR, Bonaventura LM, Lehman JS, Srouji SS. Pregnancy outcomes following robot-assisted myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28:99–108. 7. Kang SY, Jeung IC, Chung YJ, Kim HK, Lee CR, Mansukhani TS, Kim MR. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy for deep intramural myomas. Int J Med Robot. 2016; 03. 16. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1742. [Epub]. 8. Nezhat FR, Sirota I. Perioperative outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy surgery for advanced-stage endometriosis. JSLS. 2014; 18:e2014.00094. 9. Dulemba JF, Pelzel C, Hubert HB. Retrospective analysis of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopy in the treatment of pelvic pain indicative of endometriosis. J Robot Surg. 2013; 7:163–169. 10. Nezhat C, Lewis M, Kotikela S, Veeraswamy A, Saadat L, Hajhosseini B, Nezhat C. Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94:2758–2760. 11. Koninckx PR, Ussia A, Adamyan L, Wattiez A, Donnez J. Deep endometriosis: definition, diagnosis, and treatment. Fertil Steril. 2012; 98:564–571. 12. Araujo SE, Seid VE, Marques RM, Gomes MT. Advantages of the robotic approach to deep infiltrating rectal endometriosis: because less is more. J Robot Surg. 2016; 10:165–169. 13. Morelli L, Perutelli A, Palmeri M, Guadagni S, Mariniello MD, Di Franco G, Cela V, Brundu B, Salerno MG, Di Candio G, Mosca F. Robot-assisted surgery for the radical treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis with colorectal involvement: short- and mid-term surgical and functional outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016; 31(3):643–652. 14. Rajakumar C, Vilos GA, Vilos AG, Marks JL, Ettler HC, Pautler SS. Combined transurethral and laparoscopic partial cystectomy and robotically assisted bladder repair for the treatment of bladder endocervicosis: case report and review of the literature. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014; 36:141–145. 15. Siesto G, Ieda N, Rosati R, Vitobello D. Robotic surgery for deep endometriosis: a paradigm shift. Int J Med Robot. 2014; 10:140–146. 16. Nezhat C, Modest AM, King LP. The role of the robot in treating urinary tract endometriosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 25:308–311. 17. Neme RM, Schraibman V, Okazaki S, Maccapani G, Chen WJ, Domit CD, Kaufmann OG, Advincula AP. Deep infiltrating colorectal endometriosis treated with robotic-assisted rectosigmoidectomy. JSLS. 2013; 17:227–234. 18. Mosbrucker C, Somani A, Dulemba J. Visualization of endometriosis: comparative study of 3-dimensional robotic and 2-dimensional laparoscopic endoscopes. J Robot Surg. 2018; 12:59–66. 19. Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011; 22:1445–1457. 20. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, Zyczynski H. Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 104:805–823. 21. Carroll AW, Lamb E, Hill AJ, Gill EJ, Matthews CA. Surgical management of apical pelvic support defects: the impact of robotic technology. Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23:1183–1186. 22. Pan K, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Wang Y, Xu H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016; 132:284–291. 23. Vitobello D, Siesto G, Bulletti C. Robotic sacral hysteropexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Med Robot. 2012; 8:114–117. 24. Albright BB, Witte T, Tofte AN, Chou J, Black JD, Desai VB, Erekson EA. Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign sisease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23:18–27. 25. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013; 309:689–698. 26. Lonnerfors C, Reynisson P, Persson J. A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22:78–86. 27. Madueke-Laveaux OS, Advincula AP. Robot-assisted laparoscopy in benign gynecology: advantageous device or controversial gimmick. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017; 45:2–6. 28. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27:5331–5336. 29. O'Malley DM, Smith B, Fowler JM. The role of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2015; 112:761–768. 30. Soliman PT, Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Dos Reis R, Schmeler KM, Nick AM, Westin SN, Brown J, Levenback CF, Ramirez PT. Radical hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical approaches after adoption of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol. 2011; 123:333–336. 31. Chan JK, Gardner AB, Taylor K, Thompson CA, Blansit K, Yu X, Kapp DS. Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open surgery in morbidly obese endometrial cancer patients: a comparative analysis of total charges and complication rates. Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 139:300–305. 32. Cardenas-Goicoechea J, Shepherd A, Momeni M, Mandeli J, Chuang L, Gretz H, Fishman D, Rahaman J, Randall T. Survival analysis of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210:160.e1–160.e11. 33. Kilgore JE, Jackson AL, Ko EM, Soper JT, Van Le L, Gehrig PA, Boggess JF. Recurrence-free and 5-year survival following robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2013; 129:49–53. 34. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, Fowler WC. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199:360.e1–360.e9. 35. Zanagnolo V, Garbi A, Achilarre MT, Minig L. Robot-assisted surgery in gynecologic cancers. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24:379–396. 36. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, Buda A, Yan X, Shuzhong Y, Chetty N, Isla D, Tamura M, Zhu T, Robledo KP, Gebski V, Asher R, Behan V, Nicklin JL, Coleman RL, Obermair A. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:1895–1904. 37. Plante M, Renaud MC, Hoskins IA, Roy M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy: a valuable fertility-preserving option in the management of early-stage cervical cancer. A series of 50 pregnancies and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2005; 98:3–10. 38. Bernardini M, Barrett J, Seaward G, Covens A. Pregnancy outcomes in patients after radical trachelectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189:1378–1382. 39. Burnett AF, Stone PJ, Duckworth LA, Roman JJ. Robotic radical trachelectomy for preservation of fertility in early cervical cancer: case series and description of technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009; 16:569–572.