Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T17:54:46.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Gynecology Robotic Surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2017

By
Barry Hallner ,
Erin Dougher  and
Lisa M. Peacock
Edited by
Alan David Kaye  and
Richard D. Urman
Alan David Kaye
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
Richard D. Urman
Affiliation:
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Perioperative Management in Robotic Surgery , pp. 70 - 87
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sinha, R., Sanjay, M., Rupa, B., Kumari, S.. Robotic surgery in gynecology. J Minim Access Surg. 2015; 11(1): 50–9.Google Scholar
Mesogitis, S., Daskalakis, G., Pilalis, A., Papantoniou, N., Thomakos, N., Dessipris, N.. Management of ovarian cysts with aspiration and methotrexate injection. Radiology 2005; 235(2): 668–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson-Clarke, D. L., Geller, E.. Complications of hysterectomy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2013; 121: 654–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Robotic surgery in genecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125: 760–7.Google Scholar
Wright, J. D., Herzog, T. J., Tsui, J., et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 233–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Cervical cancer screening and prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 127: 1–20.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120: 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Management of abnormal uterine bleeding associated with ovulatory dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 122: 176–85.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Elective and risk-reducing salpingoophorectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 231.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 127: 450.Google Scholar
Parker, W. H., Broder, M. S., Chang, E., et al. Ovarian conservation at the time of hysterectomy and long-term health outcomes in the nurses’ health study. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113: 1027–37.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Executive summary: Power morcellation and occult malignancy in gynecologic surgery. May 2014.Google Scholar
Mangano, D. T., Goldman, L.. Preoperative assessment of patients with known or suspected coronary disease. NEJM 1995; 333(26): 1750–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smetana, G. W.. Preoperative pulmonary evaluation. NEJM 1999; 340(12): 937–44.Google Scholar
Rahn, D., Mamta, M. M., Sanses, T. V., et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118(5): 1111–25.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113: 1180–9.Google Scholar
Soper, D. E., Bump, R. C., Hurt, W. G.. Bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis vaginitis are risk factors for cuff cellulitis after abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstetrics Gynecol. 1990; 163: 1016–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harkki-Siren, P., Sjoberg, J., Tiitinen, A.. Urinary tract injuries after hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 92: 113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuno, K., Menzin, A., Kauder, H. H., et al. Prophylactic ureteral catheterization in gynecologic surgery. Urology 1998; 52: 1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, W. H.. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2004; 31: 523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harkki, P., Kurki, T., Sjoberg, J., et al. Safety aspects of laparoscopic hysterectomy. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand. 2001; 80: 383.Google Scholar
Irvin, W., Andersen, W., Taylor, P., Rice, L.. Minimizing the risk of neurologic injury in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 374–82.Google Scholar
Cardosi, R. J., Cox, C. S., Hoffman, M. S.. Postoperative neuropathies after major pelvic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 100: 240–4.Google Scholar
Nieboer, T. E., Johnson, N., Lethaby, A., et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009; issue 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilmour, D. T., Dwyer, P. L., Carey, M. P.. Lower urinary tract injury during gynecologic surgery and its detection by intraoperative cystoscopy. Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 94: 883–9.Google Scholar
Johnson, N., Barlow, D., Lethaby, A., et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign genaecological disease. The Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews 2006; issue 2.Google Scholar
Gilmour, D. T., Das, S., Flowerdew, G.. Rates of urinary tract injury from gynecologic surgery and the role of intraoperative cystoscopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107: 1366–72.Google Scholar
Carley, M. E., McIntire, D., Carley, J. M., Schaffer, J.. Incidence, risk factors and morbidity of unintended bladder or ureter injury during hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunc. 2002; 13: 18–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makinen, J., Johansson, J., Tomas, C., et al. Morbidity of 10 110 hysterectomies by type and approach. Hum Reprod. 2001; 16: 1473–8.Google Scholar
Cronin, B., Sung, V. W., Matteson, K.. Vaginal cuff dehiscence: risk factors and management. Am J Obstet Genecol. 2012; 206(4): 284–8.Google Scholar
Agdi, M., Al-Ghafri, W., Antolin, R., et al. Vaginal vault dehiscence after hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009; 16(3): 313.Google Scholar
Lee, C. K., Hansen, S. L.. Management of acute wounds. Surg Clin North Am. 2009; 89(3): 659.Google Scholar
Wright, J. D., Kostolias, A., Ananth, C. V., et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotically assisted compared with laparoscopic adnexal surgery for benign gynecologic disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 124(5): 886–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapron, C., Dubuisson, J. B., Fritel, X., Rambaud, D.. Diagnosis and management of organic ovarian cysts: indications and procedures for laparoscopy. Hum Reprod Update 1996; 2(5): 435–46.Google Scholar
Mahdavi, A., Berker, B., Nezhat, C., et al. Laparoscopic management of ovarian remnant. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2004; 31: 593.Google Scholar
Smorgick, N., Barel, O., Halperin, R., et al. Laparoscopic removal of adnexal cysts: is it possible to decrease inadvertent intraoperative rupture rate? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 200(3): 237.e1–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nezhat, C., Saberi, N. S., Shahmohamady, B., Nezhat., F. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in gynecological surgery. JSLS 2006; 10(3): 317–20.Google Scholar
Marana, R., Luciano, A. A., Muzii, L., et al. Reproductive outcome after ovarian surgery: suturing versus nonsuturing of the ovarian cortex. J Gynecol Surg. 1991; 7: 155.Google Scholar
Wiskind, A. K., Toledo, A. A., Dudley, A. G., et al. Adhesion formation after ovarian wound repair in New Zealand white rabbits: a comparison of ovarian microsurgical closure with ovarian non-closure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 163: 1674.Google Scholar
Franklin, R. R.. Reduction of ovarian adhesions by the use of Interceed. Ovarian Adhesion Study Group. Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 86(3): 335.Google Scholar
Wiseman, D. M., Trout, J. R., Franklin, R. R., et al. Metaanalysis of the safety and efficacy of an adhesion barrier (Interceed TC7) in laparotomy. J Reprod Med. 1999; 44(4): 325.Google Scholar
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society of Reproductive Surgeons. Pathogenesis, consequences, and control of peritoneal adhesions in gynecologic surgery. Fertil Steril. 2008; 90(5 suppl): S144.Google Scholar
Litta, P., D’Agostino, G., Conte, L., et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone trend after laparoscopic surgery in women with ovarian endometrioma. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013; 29(5): 452–4.Google Scholar
Yuqing, C., Huihui, P., Yajie, C., et al. The impact of endometrioma and laparoscopic cystectomy on ovarian reserve and the exploration of related factors assessed by serum anti-Mullerian hormone: a prospective cohort study. J Ovarian Res. 2014; 7: 108.Google Scholar
Bonney, V.. The techniques and results of myomectomy. Lancet 1931; 220: 171–7.Google Scholar
Semm, K.. New methods of pelviscopy (gynecologic laparoscopy) for myomectomy, ovariectomy, tubectomy and adnectomy. Endoscopy 1979; 11: 85–93.Google Scholar
Bocca, S., Stadtmauer, L., Oehninger, S.. Uncomplicated full term pregnancy after da Vinci-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 14: 246–9.Google Scholar
Pitter, M. C., Gargiulo, A. R., Bonaventura, L. M., et al. Pregnancy outcomes following robot-assisted myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28: 99–108.Google Scholar
Williams, J. W., Hoffman, B. L.. Williams gynecology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2012; 900–2.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Alternatives to hysterectomy in the management of leiomyomas. Practice Bulletin 96, August 2008.Google Scholar
Iverson, R. E., Jr, Chelmow, D., Strohbehn, K., et al. Relative morbidity of abdominal hysterectomy and myomectomy for management of uterine leiomyomas. Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 88: 415.Google Scholar
Sawin, S. W., Pilevsky, N. D., Berlin, J. A., et al. Comparability of perioperative morbidity between abdominal myomectomy and hysterectomy for women with uterine leiomyomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 183: 1448.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, E. S., Benson, C. B., Garfield, J. M., et al. The effect of operative technique and uterine size on blood loss during myomectomy: a prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril. 1993 ; 60: 956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Food and Drug Administration. Quantitative assessment of the prevalence of unsuspected uterine sarcoma in women undergoing treatment of uterine fibroids. 2014. Available at www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/UCM393589.pdfGoogle Scholar
Buttram, V. C., Reiter, R. C.. Uterine leiomyomata: etiology, symptomatology, and management. Fertil Steril. 1981; 36: 433.Google ScholarPubMed
Harris, W. J.. Uterine dehiscence following laparoscopic myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 80: 545.Google ScholarPubMed
Bayers, S. P., Jansen, D.. Gore-Tex surgical membrane. In: DeCherney, A, Diamond, MP, eds. Treatment of post-surgical adhesions. Wiley-Liss, 1990.Google Scholar
Claeys, J., Hellendoorn, I., Hamerlynck, T., et al. The risk of uterine rupture after myomectomy: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Gynecological Surgery 2014; 11(3): 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J. M., Hundley, A. F., Fulton, R. G., et al. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114: 1278–83.Google Scholar
Nygaard, I. E., McCreery, R., Brubaker, L., et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 104: 805–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culligan, P. J., Blackwell, L., Goldsmith, L. J., et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing fascia lata and synthetic mesh for sacral colpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106: 29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winters, J. C., Dmochowski, R. R., Goldman, H. B., et al. Urodynamics studies in adults: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urology 2012; 188: 2464–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, J. S., Lukacz, E. S., Menefee, S. A., et al. Determinants of vaginal length. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195: 1846–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van IJsselmuiden, M., Kerkhof, M. H., Schellart, R. P., et al. Variation in the practice of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Dutch survey. Int Urogynecol J 2015; 26: 757–64.Google Scholar
Fox, S. D., Stanton, S. L.. Vault prolapse and rectocele: assessment of repair using sacrocolpopexy with mesh interposition. BJOG 2000; 107: 1371–5.Google Scholar
Brown, B. N., Mani, D., Nolfi, A. L., et al. Characterization of the host inflammatory response following implantation of prolapse mesh in rhesus macaque. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213: 668e1–10.Google Scholar
Shepherd, J. P., Higdon, H. L. III, Stanford, E. J., et al. Effect of suture selection on the rate of suture or mesh erosion and surgery failure in abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 16: 229–33.Google Scholar
Wieslander, C. K., Rahn, D. D., McIntire, D. D., et al. Vascular anatomy of the presacral space in unembalmed female cadavers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195: 1736.Google Scholar
Anand, M., Woelk, J. L., Weaver, A. L., et al. Perioperative complications of robotic sacrocolpopexy for post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse Int Urogynecol J 2014; 25: 1193–200.Google Scholar
Kheirabadi, B. S., Field-Ridley, A., Pearson, R., et al. Comparative study of the efficacy of the common topical hemostatic agents with fibrin sealant in a rabbit aortic anastomosis model. J Surg Res. 2002; 106: 99.Google Scholar
Oz, M. C., Cosgrove, D. M. III, Badduke, B. R., et al. Controlled clinical trial of a novel hemostatic agent in cardiac surgery. The Fusion Matrix Study Group. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000; 69: 1376.Google Scholar
Weaver, F. A., Hood, D. B., Zatina, M., et al. Gelatin-thrombin-based hemostatic sealant for intraoperative bleeding in vascular surgery. Ann Vasc Surg. 2002; 16: 286.Google Scholar
Propst, K., Tunitsky-Bitton, E., Schimpf, M. O., et al. Pyogenic spondylodiscitis associated with sacral colpopexy and rectopexy: report of two cases and evaluation of the literature. Int Urogynecol J 2014; 25: 21–31.Google Scholar
Beer, M., Kuhn, A.. Surgical techniques for vault prolapse: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005; 119: 144.Google Scholar
Kohli, N., Walsh, P. M., Roat, T. W., et al. Mesh erosion after abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 92: 999.Google Scholar
Serati, M., Bogani, G., Sorice, P., et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2014; 66: 303–18.Google Scholar
Paraiso, M. F., JJelovsek, J. E., Frick, A., et al. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacral colpopexy for vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 1005–13.Google Scholar
Gilleran, J. P., Johnson, M., Hundley, A.. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy. Ther Adv Urol. 2010; 2(5–6): 195–208.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×