Milestones to optimal adoption of robotic technology in gynecology

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 123, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 13-20

  Desai, Pranjal H ^a,b,c   Lin, Jeff F ^a,b,c   Slomovitz, Brian M ^a,b,c  

^a Overlook Medical Center   (United States)

^b Carol G Simon Cancer Center   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; GYNECOLOGY; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; LEARNING CURVE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; ROBOTICS; TEAM BUILDING;

GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LEARNING CURVE; PATIENT CARE TEAM; PATIENT SAFETY; QUALITY OF LIFE; ROBOTICS;

EID: 84893651813     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: 1873233X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000055     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Tsui J, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Lu YS, et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122: 233-41.
2. Payne TN, Dauterive FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15:286-91.
3. 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;150:92-6.
4. Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau St, Ransom SB. 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.
5. Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, Kho RM. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:566.e1-5.
6. Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2011;17:44-9.
7. Magrina JF, Espada M, Munoz R, Noble BN, Kho RM. Robotic adnexectomy compared with laparoscopy for adnexal mass. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:581-4.
8. 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.
9. Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril 2008;90:1175-9.
10. Goldberg JM, Falcone T. Laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis with and without robotic assistance. Hum Reprod 2003;18:145-7.
11. Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, Lewin SN, Charles AS, Kim JH, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:783-91.
12. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63:11-30.
13. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:695-700.
14. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:5331-6.
15. Reynolds RK, Burke WM, Advincula AP. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic staging of gynecologic malignancies. JSLS 2005;9:149-58.
16. Frumovitz M, dos Reis R, Sun CC, Milam MR, Bevers MW, Brown J, et al. Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:96-102.
17. Falcone T, Paraiso MF, Mascha E. Prospective randomized clinical trial of laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:955-62.
18. Gemignani ML, Curtin JP, Zelmanovich J, Patel DA, Venkatraman E, Barakat RR. Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: clinical outcomes and hospital charges. Gynecol Oncol 1999;73:5-11.
19. 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;111:41-5.
20. Ramirez PT, Adams S, Boggess JF, Burke WM, Frumovitz MM, Gardner GJ, et al. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology consensus statement. Developed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology's Clinical Practice Robotics Task Force. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 124:180-4.
21. Edmondson A, Bohmer R, Pisano G. Speeding up team learning. Harvard Bus Rev 2001;79:125-32.
22. Desai PH, Tran R, Steinwagner T, Poston RS. Challenges of telerobotics in coronary bypass surgery. Expert Rev Med Devices 2010;7:165-8.
23. Kohn LT, Corrigan J, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 2000.
24. Singer S, Lin S, Falwell A, Gaba D, Baker L. Relationship of safety climate and safety performance in hospitals. Health Serv Res 2009;44:399-421.
25. Hughes CM, Lapane KL. Nurses' and nursing assistants' perceptions of patient safety culture in nursing homes. Int J Qual Health Care 2006;18:281-6.
26. Seamon LG, Fowler JM, Richardson DL, Carlson MJ, Valmadre S, Phillips GS, et al. A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114: 162-7.
27. Maguire T, Mayne CJ, Terry T, Tincello DG. Analysis of the surgical learning curve using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method. Neurourol Urodyn 2013;32:964-7.
28. Young A, Miller JP, Azarow K. Establishing learning curves for surgical residents using Cumulative Summation (CUSUM) Analysis. Curr Surg 2005;62:330-4.
29. Wohl H. The cusum plot: its utility in the analysis of clinical data. N Engl J Med 1977;296:1044-5.
30. Earnshaw J, Lewis G. NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal: pharmaceutical industry perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:725-7.
31. Ceri P. What is QALY? Available at: http://www.medicine.ox. ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/QALY.pdf. Retrieved November 4, 2013.
32. WHAT IS EQ-5D. Available at: www.euroqol.org/home.html. Retrieved March 24, 2009.
33. Fallowfield L. What is quality of life? 2nd ed. London (UK): Hayward Medical Communications; 2009.
34. Ellström M, Ferraz-Nunes J, Hahlin M, Olsson JH. A randomized trial with a cost-consequence analysis after laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:30-4.
35. Kornblith AB, Huang HQ, Walker JL, Spirtos NM, Rotmensch J, Cella D. Quality of life of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing laparoscopic international federation of gynecology and obstetrics staging compared with laparotomy: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27: 5337-42.
36. McGrath RG. Transient advantage. Harvard Bus Rev 2013;91: 62-72.
37. 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;111:407-11.