Role of minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: An updated survey of members of the society of gynecologic oncology

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1121-1127

  Conrad, Lesley B ^a   Ramirez, Pedro T ^b   Burke, William ^c   Naumann, R Wendel ^d   Ring, Kari L ^b   Munsell, Mark F ^b   Frumovitz, Michael ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^c New York Presbyterian Columbia University Medical Center   (United States)

^d LEVINE CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Gynecologic oncology; LESS; Minimally invasive surgery; Ovarian cancer; Robotic surgery; Uterine cancer

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CANCER STAGING; DEVICE FAILURE; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT CANCER; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OVARY CANCER; PELVIS LYMPHADENECTOMY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY; ROBOT ASSISTED SURGERY; SALPINGOOOPHORECTOMY; SINGLE PORT LAPAROSCOPY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FOLLOW UP; GENITAL NEOPLASMS, FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; LAPAROSCOPY; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; ROBOTICS;

ADULT; AGED; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FELLOWSHIPS AND SCHOLARSHIPS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GENITAL NEOPLASMS, FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; HUMANS; HYSTERECTOMY; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; ROBOTICS;

EID: 84936950007     PISSN: 1048891X     EISSN: 15251438     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000450     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Pomel C, Provencher D, Dauplat J, et al. Laparoscopic staging of early ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1995; 58: 301-306.
2. Frumovitz M, dos Reis R, Sun CC, et al. Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110: 96-102.
3. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al. Recurrence and survival after randomassignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 695-700.
4. Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, et al. A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008; 15: 584-588.
5. Frumovitz M, Ramirez PT, Greer M, et al. Laparoscopic training and practice in gynecologic oncology among Society of Gynecologic Oncologists members and fellows-in-training. Gynecol Oncol. 2004; 94: 746-753.
6. MabroukM, Frumovitz M, GreerM, et al. Trends in laparoscopic and robotic surgery among gynecologic oncologists: a survey update. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 112: 501-505.
7. 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; 123: 333-336.
8. Sert B, Abeler V. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical carcinoma patients, comparing results with total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy cases. The future is now?. Int J Med Robot. 2007; 3: 224-228.
9. 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. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 357 e1-7.
10. Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 109: 86-91.
11. 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.
12. Escobar PF, Frumovitz M, Soliman PT, et al. Comparison of single-port laparoscopy, standard laparoscopy, and robotic surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19: 1583-1588.
13. Woelk JL, Casiano ER, Weaver AL, et al. The learning curve of robotic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 87-95.
14. Persson J, Reynisson P, Borgfeldt C, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with short and long term morbidity data. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 113: 185-190.
15. Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, et al. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol. 2008; 111: 407-411.
16. Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 783-791.
17. Sinno AK, Fader AN. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology. Feril Steril. 2014; 102: 922-932.
18. Gehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A, et al. 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.
19. Seamon LG, Bryant SA, Rheaume PS, et al. Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114: 16-21.