Robotic surgery in gynaecology: Scientific Impact Paper No. 71 (July 2022)
- PMID: 35844092
- DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17242
Robotic surgery in gynaecology: Scientific Impact Paper No. 71 (July 2022)
Abstract
The use of robotic-assisted keyhole surgery in gynaecology has expanded in recent years owing to technical advances. These include 3D viewing leading to improved depth perception, limitation of tremor, potential for greater precision and discrimination of tissues, a shorter learning curve and improved comfort for surgeons compared with conventional keyhole and open abdominal surgery. Robotic-assisted keyhole surgery, compared with conventional keyhole surgery, improves surgical performance without increasing operating time, minimises blood loss and intra- or postoperative complications, while reducing the need to revert to abdominal surgery. Moreover, surgeons using a robot experience fewer skeletomuscular problems of their own in the short and long term than those operating without a robot as an additional tool. This Scientific Impact Paper looks at the use of a robot in different fields of gynaecological surgery. A robot could be considered safe and a more effective surgical tool than conventional keyhole surgery for women who have to undergo complex gynaecology surgery or have associated medical issues such as body-mass index (BMI) at 30 kg/m2 or above or lung problems. The introduction of the use of robots in keyhole surgery has resulted in a decrease in the number of traditional open surgeries and the risk of conversion to open surgery after traditional keyhole surgery; both of which should be considered when examining the cost-benefit of using a robot. Limitations of robotic-assisted surgery remain the associated higher costs. In womb cancer surgery there is good evidence that introducing robotics into the service improves outcomes for women and may reduce costs.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Laparoscopy compared to laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic oncology group LAP2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5331-6.
-
- Hanna RK, Boggess JF. Applications of surgical robotics in gynecologic surgery. In: Rosen J, Hannaford B, Satava R, editors. Surgical robotics. Boston, MA: Springer; 2011. p. 761-89.
-
- 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.
-
- Sorensen SMD, Savran MM, Konge L, Bjerrum F. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional vision in laparoscopy: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:11-23.
-
- Sahu D, Mathew MJ, Reddy PK. 3D laparoscopy - help or hype; initial experience of a tertiary health Centre. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:NC01-3.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
