AAGL Position Statement: Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery in Benign Gynecology

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 2-9

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

Robotic surgery; Robotic assisted laparoscopy in benign disease

Indexed keywords

ANASTOMOSIS; ARTICLE; ENDOMETRIOSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LEIOMYOMA; LENGTH OF STAY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; MYOMECTOMY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL TRAINING; UTERUS SURGERY;

FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; ROBOTICS; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE;

EID: 84872360545     PISSN: 15534650     EISSN: 15534669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.12.007     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Advincula A.P., Xu X., Goudeau S., Ransom S.B. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007, 14:698-705. (Class III).
2. Liu H., Lu D., Wang L., Shi G., Song H., Clarke J. Robotic conventional laparoscopic surgery for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, (2):CD008978. (Class I).
3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Health Services Research on Hysterectomy and Alternatives. Accessed 08/14/2010; 2010. (Class III). http://www.ahrq.gov/research/hysterect.htm.
4. Wu J.M., Wechter M.E., Geller E.J., Nguyen T.V., Visco A.G. Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 110:1091-1095. (Class II-3).
5. Diaz-Arrastia C., Jurnalov C., Gomez G., Townsend C. Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot. Surg Endosc 2002, 16:1271-1273. (Class III).
6. Nezhat C., Saberi N., Shahmohamady B., Nezhat F. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in gynecological surgery. JSLS 2006, 10:317-320. (Class III).
7. Reynolds R.K., Advincula A.P. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 2006, 191:555-560. (Class III).
8. Kho R.M., Hilger W.S., Hentz J.G., Magtibay P.M., Magrina J.F. Robotic hysterectomy: technique and initial outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007, 197:113.e1-113.e4. [published correction appears in Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:332], (Class II-3).
9. Payne T.N., Dauterive F.R. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008, 15:286-291. (Class II-3).
10. Nezhat C., Lavie O., Lemyre M., Gemer O., Bhagan L. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience. JSLS 2009, 13:125-128. (Class II-3).
11. Sarlos D., Kots L., Stevanovic N., Schaer G. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010, 150:92-96. (Class II-1).
12. Sarlos D., Kots L.V., Stevanovic N., von Felten S., Schär G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012, 120:604-611. (Class I).
13. Paraiso M.F., Ridgeway B., Jelovsek J.E., et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011, 18(Suppl):S28. (Class I).
14. Uccella S., Chezzi F., Mariani A., et al. Vaginal cuff closure after minimally invasive hysterectomy: our experience and systematic review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011, 205:199.e1-199.e12. (Class III).
15. Uccella S., Ceccaroni M., Cromi A., et al. Vaginal cuff dehiscence in a series of 12,398 hysterectomies: effect of different types of colpotomy and vaginal closure. Obstet Gynecol 2012, 120:516-523. (Class II-2).
16. Nawfal A.K., Orady M., Eisenstein D., Wegienka G. Effect of body mass index on robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011, 18:328-332. (Class II-2).
17. Jonsdottir G.M., Jorgensen S., Cohen S.L., et al. Increasing minimally invasive hysterectomy: effect on cost and complications. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 117:1142-1149. (Class II-3).
18. Matthews C.A., Reid N., Ramakrishnan V., Hull K., Cohen S. Evaluation of the introduction of robotic technology on route of hysterectomy and complications in the first year of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010, 203:499.e1-499.e5. (Class II-3).
19. Brenot K., Goyert G.L. Impact of robotic surgery on obstetric-gynecologic resident training. J Reprod Med 2009, 54:675-677. (Class II-3).
20. 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. (Class II-3).
21. Ascher-Walsh C.J., Capes T.L. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010, 17:306-310. (Class II-2).
22. Bedient C.E., Magrina J.F., Noble B.N., Kho R.M. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009, 201:566.e561-566.e565. (Class III).
23. 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, 91:556-559. (Class II-2).
24. Garguillo A.R., Sroiji S.S., Missmer S.A., Correia K.F., Vellinga T.T., Einarsson J.I. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2012, 120:284-291. (Class II-2).
25. Barakat E.E., Bedaiwy M.A., Zimberg S., Nutter B., Nosseir M., Falcone T. Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 117:256-265. (Class II-3).
26. Behera M.A., Likes C.E., Judd J.P., Barnett J.C., Havrilesky L.J., Wu J.M. Cost analysis of abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted myomectomies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012, 19:52-57. (Class III).
27. Parker W.H., Einarsson J., Istre O., Dubuisson J.B. Risk factors for uterine rupture after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010, 17:551-554. (Class III).
28. Pitter MC, Gargiulo AR, Bonaventura LM, Lehman JS, Srouji SS. Pregnancy outcomes following robot-assisted myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 2012; (Class II-2). doi:10.1093/humrep/des365.
29. Boyles S.H., Weber A.M., Meyn L. Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003, 188:108-115. (Class II-3).
30. Nygaard I.E., McCreery R., Brubaker L., et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 2004, 104:805-823. (Class III).
31. Elliott D.S., Krambeck A.E., Chow G.K. Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol 2006, 176:655-659. (Class II-2).
32. Elliott C.S., Hsieh M.H., Sokol E.R., Comiter C.V., Payne C.K., Chen B. Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis. J Urol 2012, 187:638-643. (Class III).
33. Geller E.J., Siddiqui N.Y., Wu J.M., Visco A.G. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 112:1201-1206. (Class II-2).
34. Geller E.J., Feng-Chang L., Matthews C.A. Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012, (Class II-2). 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.08.774.
35. Tan-Kim J., Menefee S.A., Luber K.M., Nager C.W., Lukacz E.S. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2011, 17:44-49. (Class II-2).
36. Paraiso M.F., Jelovsek J.E., Frick A., Chen C.C., Barber M.D. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 118:1005-1013. (Class I).
37. Akl M.N., Long J.B., Giles D.L., et al. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 2009, (Class III). 10.1007/s00464-008-0311-4.
38. Judd J.P., Siddiqui N.Y., Barnett J.C., Visco A.G., Havrilesky L.J., Wu J.M. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010, 17:493-499. (Class III).
39. Geller E.J., Parnell B.A., Dunivan G.C. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology 2012, 79:532-536. (Class II-2).
40. Magrina J.F., Espada M., Munoz R., Noble B.N., Kho R.M. Robotic adnexectomy compared with laparoscopy for adnexal mass. Obstet Gynecol 2009, 114:581-584. (Class II-1).
41. Nezhat C., Lewis M., Kotikela S., Veeraswamy A., Saadat L., Hajhosseini B. Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 2010, 94:2758-2760. (Class II-2).
42. Gargiulo A.R., Nezhat C. Robot-assisted laparoscopy, natural orifice transluminal endoscopy, and single-site laparoscopy in reproductive surgery. Semin Reprod Med 2011, 29:155-168. (Class III).
43. Degueldre M., Vandromme J., Huong P.T., Cadière G.B. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril 2000, 74:1020-1023. (Class III).
44. Rodgers A.K., Goldberg J.M., Hammel J.P., Falcone T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 109:1375-1380. (Class II-2).
45. Dharia Patel S.P., Steinkampf M.P., Whitten S.J., Malizia B.A. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril 2008, 90:1175-1179. (Class II-1).
46. Chandra V., Nehra D., Parent R., et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 2010, 147:830-839. (Class II-1).
47. Yohannes P., Rotariu P., Pinto P., Smith A.D., Lee B.R. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve?. Urology 2002, 60:39-45. (Class II-1).
48. Lenihan J.P., Kovanda C., Seshadri-Kreaden U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery?. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008, 15:589-594. (Class II-1).
49. Pitter M.C., Anderson P., Blissett A., Pemberton N. Robotic-assisted gynaecological surgery: establishing training criteria; minimizing operative time and blood loss. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2008, 4:114-120. (Class II-3).
50. Barbash G.I., Glied S.A. New technology and health care costs: the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 2010, 363:701-704. (Class III).
51. AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide AAGL position statement: route of hysterectomy to treat benign uterine disease. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011, 18:1-3. (Class III).