Systematic Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology: Robotic Techniques Compared With Laparoscopy and Laparotomy

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 353-361

  Gala, Rajiv B ^a   Margulies, Rebecca ^b   Steinberg, Adam ^c   Murphy, Miles ^d   Lukban, James ^e   Jeppson, Peter ^f   Aschkenazi, Sarit ^g   Olivera, Cedric ^h   South, Mary ⁱ   Lowenstein, Lior ^j   Schaffer, Joseph ^k   Balk, Ethan M ^l   Sung, Vivian ^f  

^a OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION   (United States)

^b Kaiser Medical Center   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery   (United States)

^e EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^f BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

^h Downstate Health Sciences University   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^j TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^k UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^l TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Gynecologic surgery; Learning curve; Robotic surgery; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LAPAROSCOPY; LAPAROTOMY; LEARNING CURVE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; MYOMECTOMY; REVIEW; ROBOTICS; SACROCOLPOPEXY; SURGEON; SURGICAL APPROACH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; ADULT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECONOMICS; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; LENGTH OF STAY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTERINE NEOPLASMS;

ADULT; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LAPAROTOMY; LEARNING CURVE; LENGTH OF STAY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; ROBOTICS; UTERINE NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84899967045     PISSN: 15534650     EISSN: 15534669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Liu H., Lu D., Wang L., Shi G., Song H., Clarke J. Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, (2):CD008978.
2. Wallace B.C., Trikalinos T.A., Lau J., Brodley C., Schmid C.H. Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. BMC Bioinformatics 2010, 11:55.
3. Owens D.K., Lohr K.N., Atkins D., et al. AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health-Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:513-523.
4. Atkins D., Best D., Briss P.A., et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004, 328:1490.
5. Gehrig P.A., Cantrell L.A., Shafer A., Abaid L.N., Mendivil A., Boggess J.F. What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman?. Gynecol Oncol 2008, 111:41-45.
6. Bell M.C., Torgerson J., Seshadri-Kreaden U., Suttle A.W., Hunt S. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 2008, 111:407-411.
7. Boggess J.F., Gehrig P.A., 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, 199:360.e1-360.e9.
8. Seamon L.G., Cohn D.E., Henretta M.S., et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy?. Gynecol Oncol 2009, 113:36-41.
9. Cardenas-Goicoechea J., Adams S., Bhat S.B., Randall T.C. 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, 117:224-228.
10. Lim P.C., Kang E., Park do H. 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, 17:739-748.
11. Lim P.C., Kang E., Park do H. 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, 120:413-418.
12. Magrina J.F., Zanagnolo V., Giles D., Noble B.N., Kho R.M., Magtibay P.M. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer: comparison of perioperative outcomes and recurrence with laparoscopy, vaginal/laparoscopy and laparotomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2011, 32:476-480.
13. Martino M.A., Shubella J., Thomas M.B., et al. A cost analysis of postoperative management in endometrial cancer patients treated by robotics versus laparoscopic approach. Gynecol Oncol 2011, 123:528-531.
14. Seamon L.G., Bryant S.A., Rheaume P.S., et al. Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 2009, 114:16-21.
15. DeNardis S.A., Holloway R.W., Bigsby G.E., Pikaart D.P., Ahmad S., Finkler N.J. Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2008, 111:412-417.
16. El Sahwi K.S., Hooper C., De Leon M.C., et al. Comparison between 155 cases of robotic vs. 150 cases of open surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2012, 124:260-264.
17. Subramaniam A., Kim K.H., Bryant S.A., et al. A cohort study evaluating robotic versus laparotomy surgical outcomes of obese women with endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 2011, 122:604-607.
18. Barnett J.C., Judd J.P., Wu J.M., Scales C.D., Myers E.R., Havrilesky L.J. Cost comparison among robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2010, 116:685-693.
19. Soliman P.T., Frumovitz M., Sun C.C., et al. Radical hysterectomy: a comparison of surgical approaches after adoption of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol 2011, 123:333-336.
20. Boggess J.F., Gehrig P.A., 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. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008, 199:357.e1-357.e7.
21. Maggioni A., Minig L., Zanagnolo V., et al. Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy; a case control study. Gynecol Oncol 2009, 115:60-64.
22. Cantrell L.A., Mendivil A., Gehrig P.A., Boggess J.F. Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience. Gynecol Oncol 2010, 117:260-265.
23. Geisler J.P., Orr C.J., Khurshid N., Phibbs G., Manahan K.J. Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared with open radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2010, 20:438-442.
24. Nam E.J., Kim S.W., 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, 20:1284-1289.
25. 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.e1-566.e5.
26. 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(2 Pt 1):256-265.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Landeen L.B., Bell M.C., Hubert H.B., Bennis L.Y., Knutsen-Larson S.S., Seshadri-Kreaden U. Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. S D Med 2011, 64:197-199. 201, 203 passim.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Seamon L.G., Cohn D.E., Richardson D.L., et al. Robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 112:1207-1213.
37. Seamon L.G., Fowler J.M., Richardson D.L., et al. A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009, 114:162-167.
38. Holloway R.W., Ahmad S., DeNardis S.A., et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer: analysis of surgical performance. Gynecol Oncol 2009, 115:447-452.
39. Moreno Sierra J., Ortiz Oshiro E., Fernandez Perez C., et al. Long-term outcomes after robotic sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: prospective analysis. Urol Int 2011, 86:414-418.
40. Lowe M.P., Johnson P.R., Kamelle S.A., Kumar S., Chamberlain D.H., Tillmanns T.D. A multiinstitutional experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2009, 114(2 Pt 1):236-243.
41. 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.
42. Lenihan J.P. Navigating credentialing, privileging, and learning curves in robotics with an evidence and experienced-based approach. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2011, 54:382-390.
43. Ahmed K., Ibrahim A., Wang T.T., et al. Assessing the cost effectiveness of robotics in urological surgery: a systematic review. BJU Int 2012, 110:1544-1556.
44. Kang B.H., Xuan Y., Hur H., Ahn C.W., Cho Y.K., Han S.U. Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: the learning curve of robotic surgery. J Gastric Cancer 2012, 12:156-163.
45. Fourman M.M., Saber A.A. Robotic bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2012, 8:483-488.
46. Reza M., Maeso S., Blasco J.A., Andradas E. Meta-analysis of observational studies on the sa7fety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg 2010, 97:1772-1783.
47. Royse C.F., Newman S., Chung F., et al. Development and feasibility of a scale to assess postoperative recovery: the post-operative quality recovery scale. Anesthesiology 2010, 113:892-905.
48. Thompson R.H., Carver B.S., Bosl G.J., et al. Body mass index is associated with higher lymph node counts during retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Urology 2012, 79:361-364.
49. Ramirez P.T., Adams S., Boggess J.F., 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, 124:180-184.