Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2018
  • Online publication date: February 2018

13 - Robotic Surgery

from Section 2 - Gynecologic Surgery

Summary

Introduction

Since the approval of the robotic surgical system by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2005, robotic-assisted laparoscopy has become widely marketed for use in gynecologic surgery. While the overall number of inpatient hysterectomies performed in the United States has decreased during the time period of 2008 to 2010, the percentage of robotic hysterectomies has increased from 0.9 percent to 8.2 percent. In addition to hysterectomy, the robotic platform has become a tool for various other gynecologic procedures including treatment of gynecologic cancers, pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence, fibroids, endometriosis, and adnexal surgery. The only currently available surgical system for robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery is the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). The robotic platform offers several advantages over conventional laparoscopy, including three-dimensional high-definition vision, wristed instruments with seven degrees of freedom, intuitive motion, scaling of movements, tremor reduction, and ergonomic positioning for the surgeon. Despite these improvements, disadvantages exist including the loss of haptic feedback, increased operating time, increased cost, and additional training requirements. While there is clear evidence to support the advantages of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery over the open abdominal approach, data are limited and controversy remains concerning the advantages of the robotic route over other minimally invasive techniques. This chapter will address the outcomes and cost associated with robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery as well as recommendations regarding training, credentialing, and privileging. Important perioperative considerations specific to robotic surgery will also be discussed.

Scope of the Problem

Although robotic-assistance has been advertised to offer improvements upon the minimally invasive approach of laparoscopy, concerns have arisen regarding the applicability, cost, and implications on trainee education when applying robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery in practice. Herein we explore a selection of the available evidence surrounding the use of robotic-assistance in gynecologic surgery. In addition, important perioperative considerations unique to robotic surgery are considered.

Outcomes and Cost

Hysterectomy for Benign Disease

Multiple sources have reported on the advantages of using a minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign disease. Vaginal hysterectomy is currently recommended as the route of choice by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) when feasible due to better outcomes, fewer complications, and lower cost when compared to alternative approaches.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
1. Schiavone, MB, Kuo, EC, Naumann, RW et al. The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecologic surgery by hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;207(3):174.e1-7.
2. Wright, JD, Herzog, TJ, Tsui, J et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Aug;122(2 Pt 1):233–41.
3. da Vinci Surgery Community Online Training Modules [Internet]. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.; 2016 [cited Feb 8, 2016]. Available from: www.davincisurgerycommunity.com/training/onlinemodule?&tab1=TR.
4. Committee Opinion No. 628: Robotic surgery in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;125(3):760–7.
5. Gala, RB, Margulies, R, Steinberg, A et al. Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 May–Jun;21(3):353–61.
6. Liu, H, Lawrie, TA, Lu, D, Song, H, Wang, L, Shi, G. Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 10;12:CD011422.
7. Aarts, JW, Nieboer, TE, Johnson, N et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;8:CD003677.
8. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: Choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Nov;114(5):1156–8.
9. Sarlos, D, Kots, L, Stevanovic, N, Fenton, S von, Schar, G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;120(3):604–11.
10. Paraiso, MF, Ridgeway, B, Park, AJ et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 May;208(5):368.e1-7.
11. Woelk, JL, Borah, BJ, Trabuco, EC, Heien, HC, Gebhart, JB. Cost differences among robotic, vaginal, and abdominal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Feb;123(2 Pt 1):255–62.
12. Landeen, LB, Bell, MC, Hubert, HB et al. Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. S D Med. 2011 Jun;64(6):197–9.
13. Lonnerfors, C, Reynisson, P, Persson, J. A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Jan;22(1):78–86.
14. Wright, JD, Ananth, CV, Lewin, SN et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. J A Med Assoc. 2013 Feb;20;309(7):689–98.
15. Gehrig, 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 Oct;111(1):41–5.
16. Bell, MC, Torgerson, J, Seshadri-Kreaden, U, Suttle, AW, Hunt, S. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Dec;111(3):407–11.
17. Boggess, JF, Gehrig, PA, Cantrell, L et al. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):360.e1-9.
18. Seamon, LG, Cohn, DE, Henretta, MS et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Apr;113(1):36–41.
19. Cardenas-Goicoechea, J, Adams, S, Bhat, SB, Randall, TC. 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.
20. Lim, PC, Kang, E, Park, DH. Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 Nov–Dec;17(6):739–48.
21. Lim, PC, Kang, E, Park, DH. A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Mar;120(3):413–8.
22. Magrina, JF, Zanagnolo, V, Giles, D, Noble, BN, Kho, RM, Magtibay, PM. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes and recurrence with laparoscopy, vaginal/laparoscopy and laparotomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2011;32(5):476–80.
23. Martino, MA, Shubella, J, Thomas, MB et al. A cost analysis of postoperative management in endometrial cancer patients treated by robotics versus laparoscopic approach. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Dec;123(3):528–31.
24. Seamon, LG, Bryant, SA, Rheaume, PS et al. Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;114(1):16–21.
25. DeNardis, SA, Holloway, RW, Bigsby, GE IV, Pikaart, DP, Ahmad, S, Finkler, NJ. Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Dec;111(3):412–7.
26. ElSahwi, KS, Hooper, C, Leon, MC De et al. Comparison between 155 cases of robotic vs. 150 cases of open surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2012 Feb;124(2):260–4.
27. Subramaniam, A, Kim, KH, Bryant, SA et al. A cohort study evaluating robotic versus laparotomy surgical outcomes of obese women with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Sep;122(3):604–7.
28. Barnett, JC, Judd, JP, Wu, JM, Scales, CD Jr, Myers, ER, Havrilesky, LJ. Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Sep;116(3):685–93.
29. Soliman, PT, Frumovitz, M, Sun, CC et al. Radical hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical approaches after adoption of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Nov;123(2):333–6.
30. Boggess, JF, Gehrig, PA, Cantrell, L et al. A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;199(4):357.e1-7.
31. Maggioni, A, Minig, L, Zanagnolo, V et al. Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Oct;115(1):60–4.
32. Cantrell, LA, Mendivil, A, Gehrig, PA, Boggess, JF. Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2010 May;117(2):260–5.
33. Geisler, JP, Orr, CJ, Khurshid, N, Phibbs, G, Manahan, KJ. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared with open radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010 Apr;20(3):438–42.
34. Nam, EJ, Kim, SW, Kim, S et al. A case-control study of robotic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy using 3 robotic arms compared with abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010 Oct;20(7):1284–9.
35. Pundir, J, Pundir, V, Walavalkar, R, Omanwa, K, Lancaster, G, Kayani, S. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 May–Jun;20(3):335–45.
36. Hanafi, MM, Hsu, YS, Fomo, AN. Comparative study between robotic laparoscopic myomectomy and abdominal myomectomy and factors affecting short-term surgical outcomes. J Reprod Med Endokrinol. 2010;7(4):258.
37. Advincula, AP, Xu, X, Goudeau, S IV, Ransom, SB. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007 Nov–Dec;14(6):698–705.
38. Ascher-Walsh, CJ, Capes, TL. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 May–Jun;17(3):306–10.
39. Sangha, R. Eisenstein, D. George, A. Munkarah, A. Wegienka, G. Comparison of surgical outcomes for robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared to abdominal myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 Nov–Dec;17(6 Suppl 1):S108.
40. Barakat, EE, Bedaiwy, MA, Zimberg, S, Nutter, B, Nosseir, M, Falcone, T. Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Feb;117(2 Pt 1):256–65.
41. Nash, K, Feinglass, J, Zei, C et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Feb;285(2):435–40.
42. Mansour, FW, Kives, S, Urbach, DR, Lefebvre, G. Robotically assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: a Canadian experience. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012 Apr;34(4):353–8.
43. Nezhat, C, Lavie, O, Hsu, S, Watson, J, Barnett, O, Lemyre, M. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy: a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril. 2009 Feb;91(2):556–9.
44. Bedient, CE, Magrina, JF, Noble, BN, Kho, RM. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Dec;201(6):566.e1-5.
45. Gargiulo, AR, Srouji, SS, Missmer, SA, Correia, KF, Vellinga, TT, Einarsson, JI. robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Aug;120(2, Pt 1):284–91.
46. Carbonnel, M, Goetgheluck, J, Frati, A, Even, M, Ayoubi, JM. Robot-assisted laparoscopy for infertility treatment: current views. Fertil Steril. 2014 Mar;101(3):621–6.
47. Nezhat, C, Lewis, M, Kotikela, S et al. Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2010 Dec;94(7):2758–60.
48. Ercoli, A, D'asta, M, Fagotti, A et al. Robotic treatment of colorectal endometriosis: technique, feasibility and short-term results. Hum Reprod. 2012 Mar;27(3):722–6.
49. Collinet, P, Leguevaque, P, Neme, RM et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopy for deep infiltrating endometriosis: international multicentric retrospective study. Surg Endosc. 2014 Aug;28(8):2474–9.
50. Anger, JT, Mueller, ER, Tarnay, C et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jan;123(1):5–12.
51. Paraiso, MF, Jelovsek, JE, Frick, A, Chen, CC, Barber, MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Nov;118(5):1005–13.
52. Wright, JD, Kostolias, A, Ananth, CV et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotically assisted compared with laparoscopic adnexal surgery for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Nov;124(5):886–96.
53. George, K, Kamath, MS, Tharyan, P. Minimally invasive versus open surgery for reversal of tubal sterilization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb;2:CD009174.
54. Patel, SP Dharia, Steinkampf, MP, Whitten, SJ, Malizia, BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril. 2008 Oct;90(4):1175–9.
55. Rodgers, AK, Goldberg, JM, Hammel, JP, Falcone, T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jun;109(6):1375–80.
56. Owens, AE, Irobunda, HO, Henne, MB. Microscopic tubal reversal: robot assisted laparoscopy or microsurgery?. Fertil Steril. 2012 Sep;98(3 Suppl 1):S36.
57. AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. AAGL position statement: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery in benign gynecology. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013 Jan–Feb;20(1):2–9.
58. Lenihan, JP Jr, Kovanda, C, Seshadri-Kreaden, U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery?. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008 Sep–Oct;15(5):589–94.
59. Yamasato, K, Casey, D, Kaneshiro, B, Hiraoka, M. Effect of robotic surgery on hysterectomy trends: implications for resident education. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 May–Jun;21(3):399–405.
60. Jeppson, PC, Rahimi, S, Gattoc, L et al. Impact of robotic technology on hysterectomy route and associated implications for resident education. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;212(2):196.e1-6.
61. Moola, D, Westermann, LB, Pauls, R, Eschenbacher, M, Crisp, C. The impact of robotic-assisted surgery on training gynecology residents. Fem Pelv Med Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jan–Feb;22(1):11–15.
62. Schreuder, HW, Wolswijk, R, Zweemer, RP, Schijven, MP, Verheijen, RH. Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. B J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jan;119(2):137–49.
63. Bienstock, J, Adams, KE, Connolly, A et al. The Obstetrics and Gynecology Milestones Project [Internet]. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; 2015 [version 09/2013; cited 2016 Feb 8]. Available from: www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/portals/0/pdfs/milestones/obstetricsandgynecologymilestones.pdf.
64. AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. Guidelines for privileging for robotic-assisted gynecologic laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 Mar–Apr;21(2):157–67.
65. Makai, G, Isaacson, K. Complications of gynecologic laparoscopy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Sep;52(3):401–11.
66. Sharma, KC, Brandstetter, RD, Brensilver, JM, Jung, LD. Cardiopulmonary physiology and pathophysiology as a consequence of laparoscopic surgery. Chest. 1996 Sep;110(3):810–5.