Variance in Abdominal Wall Anatomy and Port Placement in Women Undergoing Robotic Gynecologic Surgery

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 583-586

  Matthews, Catherine A ^a   Schubert, Christine M ^a   Woodward, Ashley P ^a   Gill, Edward J ^a  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Abdominal wall anatomy; Ethnic differences; Port placement; Robotic surgery

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL WALL; ADULT; ANATOMICAL VARIATION; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; HUMAN; ILIAC CREST; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORPHOMETRICS; PUBIS SYMPHYSIS; ROBOTICS; UMBILICUS; AFRICAN AMERICAN; AGED; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; CAUCASIAN; LAPAROSCOPY; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURGERY; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ABDOMINAL WALL; ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICANS; AGED; BODY MASS INDEX; BODY WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITY; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROBOTICS; UMBILICUS;

EID: 77955927944     PISSN: 15534650     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.04.008     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Muhe E. Long-term follow-up after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Endoscopy 1992, 24:754-758.
2. Ambardar S., Cabot J., Cekic V., et al. Abdominal wall dimensions and umbilical position vary widely with BMI and should be taken into account when choosing port locations. Surg Endosc 2009, 23:1995-2000.
3. Hurd W.W., Bude R.O., DeLancey J.O., Pearl M.L. The relationship of the umbilicus to the aortic bifurcation: implications for laparoscopic technique. Obstet Gynecol 1992, 80:48-51.
4. Nezhat F., Brill A.I., Nezhat C.H., Nezhat A., Seidman D.S., Nezhat C. Laparoscopic appraisal of the anatomic relationship of the umbilicus to the aortic bifurcation. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1998, 5:135-140.
5. Eun D., Bhandari A., Boris R., Rogers C., Bhandari M., Menon M. Concurrent upper and lower urinary tract robotic surgery: strategies for success. BJU Int 2007, 100:1121-1125.
6. Hemal A.K., Eun D., Tewari A., Menon M. Nuances in the optimum placement of ports in pelvic and upper urinary tract surgery using the da Vinci robot. Urol Clin North Am 2004, 31:683-692.
7. Advincula A.P., Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009, 16:291-301.
8. Neter J.W.W., Kutner M.H. Applied Linear Statistical Models 1974, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL, 888-890.
9. Baragi R.V., Delancey J.O., Caspari R., Howard D.H., Ashton-Miller J.A. Differences in pelvic floor area between African American and European American women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002, 187:111-115.
10. Hoyte L., Thomas J., Foster R.T., Shott S., Jakab M., Weidner A.C. Racial differences in pelvic morphology among asymptomatic nulliparous women as seen on three-dimensional magnetic resonance images. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005, 193:2035-2040.
11. Handa V.L., Lockhart M.E., Fielding J.R., et al. Racial differences in pelvic anatomy by magnetic resonance imaging. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 111:914-920.
12. Rizk D.E., Czechowski J., Ekelund L. Dynamic assessment of pelvic floor and bony pelvis morphologic condition with the use of magnetic resonance imaging in a multiethnic, nulliparous, and healthy female population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 191:83-89.