Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: Comparison with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy; one surgeon's experience at the Norwegian Radium Hospital

Robotic surgery - advance or gimmick?

Robotic surgery is increasingly implemented as a minimally invasive approach to a variety of gynaecological procedures. The use of conventional laparoscopy by a broad range of surgeons, especially in complex procedures, is hampered by several drawbacks. Robotic surgery was created with the aim of overcoming some of the limitations. Although robotic surgery has many advantages, it is also associated with clear disadvantages. At present, the proof of superiority over access by laparotomy or laparoscopy through large randomised- controlled trials is still lacking. Until results of such trials are present, a firm conclusion about the usefulness of robotic surgery cannot be drawn. Robotic surgery is promising, making the advantages of minimally invasive surgery potentially available to a large number of surgeons and patients in the future.

The place of robotics in gynecologic surgery

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic surgery has undergone widespread development in recent years. The surgical literature on this subject continues to grow. The goal of this article is to summarize the principal indications for robotic assistance in gynecologic surgery and to offer a general overview of the principal articles dealing with robotic surgery for both benign and malignant disease.

Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: a review of modalities and the literature

Minimally invasive surgery is one of the newest and most exciting areas of development in procedural medicine. This field shows tremendous potential to increase therapeutic benefit while minimizing some of the painful or dangerous side effects of surgical interventions. Minimally invasive surgery has strong historic ties to the field of gynecology and has come a long way as technology and techniques have improved. This has increasingly allowed the application of laparoscopy to more complex procedures and the treatment of gynecologic malignancies. Three laparoscopic approaches, traditional laparoscopy, robotic assisted laparoscopy and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery are reviewed here. We discuss the basic approaches to these three laparoscopic techniques, and then review their applications in gynecologic oncology. We also touch on the evidence behind outcomes associated with their use.

Laparoscopic, robotic and open method of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Over the last two decades, numerous studies have indicated the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer without compromising the oncological outcome.

OBJECTIVE

Systematic literature review and meta analysis aimed at evaluating the outcome of laparoscopic and robotic radical hysterectomy (LRH and RRH) and comparing the results with abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH).

SEARCH STRATEGY

Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Reference lists were searched for articles published until January 31(st) 2011, using the terms radical hysterectomy, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, robotic radical hysterectomy, surgical treatment of cervical cancer and complications of radical hysterectomy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies that reported outcome measures of radical hysterectomy by open method, laparoscopic and robotic methods were selected.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted and tabulated the data and pooled estimates were obtained on the surgical and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Mean sample size, age and body mass index across the three types of RH studies were similar. Mean operation time across the three types of RH studies was comparable. Mean blood loss and transfusion rate are significantly higher in ARH compared to both LRH and RRH. Duration of stay in hospital for RRH was significantly less than the other two methods. The mean number of lymph nodes obtained, nodal metastasis and positive margins across the three types of RH studies were similar. Post operative infectious morbidity was significantly higher among patients who underwent ARH compared to the other two methods and a higher rate of cystotomy in LRH.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery especially robotic radical hysterectomy may be a better and safe option for surgical treatment of cervical cancer. The laparoscopic method is not free from complications. However, experience of surgeon may reduce the complications rate.

Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review

The introduction of da Vinci Robotic Surgery to the field of Gynecology has resulted in large changes in surgical management. The robotic platform allows less experienced laparoscopic surgeons to perform more complex procedures. In general gynecology and reproductive gynecology, the robot is being increasingly used for procedures such as hysterectomies, myomectomies, adnexal surgery, and tubal anastomosis. Among urogynecology the robot is being utilized for sacrocolopexies. In the field of gynecologic oncology, the robot is being increasingly used for hysterectomies and lymphadenectomies in oncologic diseases. Despite the rapid and widespread adoption of robotic surgery in gynecology, there are no randomized trials comparing its efficacy and safety to other traditional surgical approaches. Our aim is to update previously published reviews with a focus on only comparative observational studies. We determined that, with the right amount of training and skill, along with appropriate patient selection, robotic surgery can be highly advantageous. Patients will likely have less blood loss, less post-operative pain, faster recoveries, and fewer complications compared to open surgery and potentially even laparoscopy. However, until larger, well-designed observational studies or randomized control trials are completed which report long-term outcomes, we cannot definitively state the superiority of robotic surgery over other surgical methods.

Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology

Robotic surgery for the management of gynecologic cancers allows for minimally invasive surgical removal of cancer-bearing organs and tissues using sophisticated surgeon-manipulated, robotic surgical instrumentation. Early on, gynecologic oncologists recognized that minimally invasive surgery was associated with less surgical morbidity and that it shortened postoperative recovery. Now, robotic surgery represents an effective alternative to conventional laparotomy. Since its widespread adoption, minimally invasive surgery has become an option not only for the morbidly obese but for women with gynecologic malignancy where conventional laparotomy has been associated with significant morbidity. As such, this paper considers indications for robotic surgery, reflects on outcomes from initial robotic surgical outcomes data, reviews cost efficacy and implications in surgical training, and discusses new roles for robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer management.

From laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy to vaginal assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment for patients with early stage cervical cancer. The majority of radical hysterectomies are performed with the open technique. However, laparoscopic, combined laparoscopic and vaginal, and robotic-assisted approaches may also be used. Compared with the abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH), laparoscopic techniques are associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, better cosmesis, and faster recovery. A further breakthrough in laparoscopic technique can only be made if safety and oncological clearance are comparable with ARH. We describe the technique and results of laparoscopic assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and the transition to vaginal assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.