Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Laparoscopic Entry pp 97–118Cite as

Robotic-Assisted Surgery and Related Abdominal Entry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1479 Accesses

Abstract

Because laparoscopic surgery has revolutionized the concept of minimally invasive surgery for the last three decades [1], new equipment, cameras, and energy sources were developed that have enabled surgeons to perform more complex surgeries that were once only performed by laparotomies [1]. In the field of pelvic surgery, almost all types of cases now can be performed through a laparoscope, depending on the skill and experience of the surgeon and the availability of proper instrumentation [1]. Robotic-assisted surgery is one of the latest of the innovations in minimally invasive surgery. By the twentieth century, advances in task-specific surgical instrumentations, optics, and digital video equipment, as well as computer and robotic technology opened a new frontier for minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery. The recent introduction of advanced robotic devices, such as da Vinci surgical system, to the field of pelvic surgery has added new hope that operative times as well as the learning curve for minimally invasive surgery may be reduced. The surgeon now is able to operate, suture, and dissect with the facility of the human wrist and in addition, the superior three-dimensional view offered by this robotic system provides surgeons with an unprecedented view of the anatomy. The three-dimensional view is a significant advantage of the robotic surgical system that improves visualization and allows greater precision and accuracy. Furthermore, the surgeon seated at the surgical console performs the dissection with wristlike motions of the master controls, which provides finer, more delicate manipulation of tissue and facilitates procedures that are considered more difficult by conventional laparoscopy. The motions of the surgeon at the console unit are replicated by the robotic arms placed within the patient. During robotic surgery, an assistant is available at the operating table. The assistant performs robot-related tasks, including alignment and exchange of robotic instruments, operative maneuvers with conventional instruments such as organ manipulation, tissue countertraction, suction, and irrigation, and any necessary alterations in the position of the intrauterine manipulator. The presence of the scrubbed assistant is also crucial in the event that an emergency conversion to a laparotomy is required. Robotic technology is used mainly in pelvic surgery because the difficult access to the pelvic cavity is greatly facilitated by the use of robotic arms. In fact, a robot is used in both the urological and gynecological fields. More specifically, robotic-assisted surgery has been applied in many urological surgical procedures, such as for radical prostatectomy, partial nephrectomy, and cystectomy. In the same way, gynecological surgery has been improved by robotic-assisted surgery, both in the treatment of benign and malignant diseases. Robotic-assisted surgery is strictly linked to traditional laparoscopic techniques, with the advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Chapron C, Dubuisson JB, Querleu D, Pierre F. Complications of laparoscopy: a prospective multicentre observational study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(12):1419–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fuller J, Ashar BS, Carey-Corrado J. Trocar-associated injuries and fatalities: an analysis of 1399 reports to the FDA. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12:302–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shirk GJ, Johns A, Redwine DB. Complications of laparoscopic surgery: how to avoid them and how to repair them. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(4):352–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schäfer M, Lauper M, Krähenbühl L. Trocar and Verres needle injuries during laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(3):275–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Crist DW, Gadacz TR. Complications of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 1993;73(2):265–89.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wolfe BM, Gardiner BN, Leary BF, Frey CF. An analysis of complications. Gynaecological endoscopic cholecystectomy. An analysis of complications. Arch Surg 1991 Oct; 126(10): 1192-6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chapron CM, Pierre F, Lacroix S, Querleu D, Lansac J, Dubuisson JB. Major vascular injuries during gynecologic laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185(5):461–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hemal AK, Menon M. Laparoscopy, robot, telesurgery and urology: future perspective. J Postgrad Med. 2002;48:39–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM. Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol. 2011;185(4):1191–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hemal AK, Menon M. Robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol. 2004;14:89–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hemal AK, Eun D, Tewari A, Menon M. Nuances in the optimum placement of ports in pelvic and upper urinary tract surgery using the da Vinci robot. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31:683–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Menon M. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: is the dust settling? Eur Urol. 2011;59:7–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, Orvieto MA, Chauhan S, Ficarra V. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol. 2010;24:2003–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lowrance WT, Tarin TV, Shariat SF. Evidence-based comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy. ScientificWorldJournal. 2010;10:2228–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Richards KA, Hemal AK, Kader AK, Pettus JA. Robot assisted laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy at the time of radical cystectomy rivals that of open surgery: single institution report. Urology. 2010;76:1400–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Richards KA, Kader K, Hemal AK. Robotic radical cystectomy: where are we today, where will we be tomorrow? ScientificWorldJournal. 2010;10:2215–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Babbar P, Hemal AK. Robot-assisted urologic surgery in 2010 - Advancements and future outlook. Urol Ann. 2011;3(1):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Martin AD, Nunez RN, Castle EP. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: a complete cost analysis. Urology. 2011;77(3):621–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fumo MJ, Badani KK, Menon M. Robotic radical cystectomy. In: Smith JA, Tewari AK, editors. Robotics in urologic surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  20. McHone B, Jarrett TW, Pinto PA. Tips and tricks of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2010;62(3):273–81.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Poletajew S, Antoniewicz AA, Borówka A. Kidney removal: the past, presence, and perspectives: a historical review. Urol J. 2010;7(4):215–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Babbar P, Hemal AK. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: current status, techniques, and future directions. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011; [Epub ahead of print].

    Google Scholar 

  23. Colli J, Martin B, Purcell M, Kim YI, Busby EJ. Surgical factors affecting return of renal function after partial nephrectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011;43(1):131–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rogers C, Sukumar S, Gill IS. Robotic partial nephrectomy: the real benefit. Curr Opin Urol. 2011;21(1):60–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rogers CG, Singh A, Blatt AM, Linehan WM, Pinto PA. Robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors: surgical technique. Eur Urol. 2008;53:514–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kavoussi LR, Peters CA. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1996;150:1891–4.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Janetschek G, Peschel R, Bartasch G. Laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic kidney pyeloplasty. Urologe A. 1996;35:202–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Stock JA, Esposito MP, Lovallo G. Robotic pyeloplasty. In: Stock JA, Esposito MP, Lantieri V, editors. Urologic robotic surgery. 1st ed. Totowa: Humana Press; 2008.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Bruhn AM, Hyams ES, Stifelman MD. Laparoscopic and robotic assisted adrenal surgery. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2010;62(3):305–18.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Del Pizzo JJ. Miscellaneous adult robotic surgery. In: Smith JA, Tewari AK, editors. Robotics in urologic surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hatch K, Hallum A, Surwit E, Childers J. The role of laparoscopy in gynaecologic oncology. Cancer. 1995;76:2113–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Nezhat CR, Burrell MO, Nezhat FR, Benigno BB, Welander CE. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(3):864–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lowe MP, Bahador A, Muderspach LI, Burnett A, Santos L, Caffrey A, et al. Feasibility of laparoscopic extraperitoneal surgical staging for locally advanced cervical carcinoma in a gynecologic oncology fellowship training program. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13(5):391–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Childers J, Brzechffa P, Hatch K, Surwit E. Laparoscopically assisted surgical staging (LASS) of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1993;51:33–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Childers J, Surwit E. Combined laparoscopic and vaginal surgery for the management of two cases of stage I endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;45:46–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Canis M, Mage G, Wattiez A, Pauly J, Manhes H, Bruhat M. Does endoscopic surgery have a role in radical surgery of cancer of the cervix uteri. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1990;19:921.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Abu-Rustum N, Gemignani M, Moore K, Sonoda Y, Venkatraman E, Brown C, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy using the argon-beam coagulator: pilot data and comparison to laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91:402–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Magrina J. Outcomes of laparoscopic treatment for endometrial cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:343–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Magrina J, Mutone N, Weaver A, Magtibay P, Fowler R, Cornella J. Laparoscopic lymphadenectomy and vaginal or laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for endometrial cancer: morbidity and survival. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:376–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Gemignani M, Curtin J, Zelmanovich J, Patel D, Venkatraman E, Barakat R. Laparocopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: clinical outcomes and hospital charges. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;73:5–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Spirtos N, Schlaerth J, Gross G, Spirtos T, Schlaerth A, Ballon S. Cost and quality -of-life analysis of surgery for early endometrial cancer: laparotomy versus laparosocpy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996 Jun; 174(6):1795–9.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Reynolds RK, Advincula AP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg. 2006;191:555–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Jonat W. One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaecological endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2748–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Diaz-Arrastia C, Jurnalov C, Gomez G, Townsend Jr C. Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:1271–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Advincula AP. Surgical techniques: robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy with the da Vinci surgical system. Int J Med Robot. 2006;2:305–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Kho RM, Hilger WS, Hentz JG, Magtibay PM, Magrina JF. Robotic hysterectomy: technique and initial outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:113. e1-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1375–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ferguson JL, Beste TM, Nelson KH, Daucher JA. Making the transition from standard gynecologic laparoscopy to robotic laparoscopy. JSLS. 2004;8:326–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Nezhat C, Saberi NS, Shahmohamady B, Nezhat F. Robotic assisted laparoscopy in gynecological surgery. JSLS. 2006;10:317–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nezhat FR, Datta MS, Liu C, Chuang L, Zakashansky K. Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer. JSLS. 2008;12:227–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Frumovitz M, Ramirez P, Greer M, Gregurich M, Wolf J, Bodurka D. Laparoscopic training and practice in gynecologic oncology among Society of Gynecologic Oncologists members and fellow-in-training. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94:746–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nezhat FR, Datta MS, Liu C, Chuang L, Zakashansky K. Robotic radical hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for treatment of early cervical cancer. JSLS. 2008;3:227–37.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Holloway RW, Brudie LA, Rakowski JA, Ahmad S. Robotic-assisted resection of liver and diaphragm recurrent ovarian carcinoma: description of technique. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120:419–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Malzoni M, Malzoni C, Perone C, Rotondi M, Reich H. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type III) and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2004;25(4):525–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Jackson KS, Das N, Naik R, et al. Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy vs. radical abdominal hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a match controlled study. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;95(3):655–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Pomel C, Atallah D, Le Bouedec G, Lopes AD, Godfrey KA, Hatem MH, et al. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer: 8-year experience of a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91(3):534–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Malur S, Possover M, Schneider A. Laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal versus radical abdominal hysterectomy type II in patients with cervical cancer. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(3):289–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Ciravolo G, Volpi E, Uccella S, Rampinelli F, et al. Surgicopathologic outcome of laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:502–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Li G, Yan X, Shang H, Wang G, Chen L, Han Y. A comparison of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy and laparotomy in the treatment of Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105(1):176–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Advincula AP, Reynolds RK. The use of robot-assisted laparosocpic hysterectomy in the patient with a scarred or obliterated anterior cul-de-sac. JSLS. 2005;9:287–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Farquhar CM, Steiner CA. Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 1990–1997. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:229–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R, et al. Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988–1990. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83:549–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Lepine LA, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Koonin LM, Morrow B, Kieke BA, et al. Hysterectomy surveillance—United States, 1980–1993. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ. 1997;46:1–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Reich H, Decaprio J, McGlynn F. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg. 1989;5:213–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wattiez A, Cohen SB, Selvaggi L. Laparoscopic hysterectomy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;14:417–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Matthews CA. Robot-assisted laparoscopic colposacropexy and cervicosacropexy with the da Vinci surgical system. Surg Technol Int. 2010;20:232–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Moreno Sierra J, Galante Romo I, Ortiz Oshiro E, Núñez Mora C, Silmi Moyano A. Robotic assisted laparoscopic colposacropexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Arch Esp Urol. 2007;60(4):481–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ascher-Walsh CJ, Capes TL. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(3):306–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Unal E, Nezhat CH, Nezhat F. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific dream or reality? Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2620–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Falcone T, Goldberg JM. Robotics in gynecology. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83:1483–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PT, Cadiere GB. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:1020–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Margossian H, Stevens L. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a human pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1040–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Field JB, Benoit MF, Dinh TA, Diaz-Arrastia C. Computer-enhanced robotic surgery in gynecologiconcology. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:244–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Goldberg JM, Falcone T. Laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis with and without robotic assistance. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:145–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Hsu S, Watson J, Barnett O, Lemyre M. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy: a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:556–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Gemer O, Bhagan L. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience. JSLS. 2009;13:125–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Gustapane S, Buscarini M, Gill IS, Stark M, Nezhat FR, Mettler L. Robotic assisted surgery in gynecology: current insights and future perspectives. Recent Pat Biotechnol. 2011; [Epub ahead of print].

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Department of Urology, Campus Biomedico University, Rome, Italy

    Crisitina Falavolti & Maurizio Buscarini

  2. Division of Gynaecology, Department of Gynaecology, Campus Biomedico University, Rome, Italy

    Roberto Angioli & Patrizio Damiani

Authors
  1. Crisitina Falavolti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberto Angioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrizio Damiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maurizio Buscarini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Gynecology and Obstetric, Vito Fazzi Hospital, Lecce, 73100, Italy

    Andrea Tinelli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Falavolti, C., Angioli, R., Damiani, P., Buscarini, M. (2012). Robotic-Assisted Surgery and Related Abdominal Entry. In: Tinelli, A. (eds) Laparoscopic Entry. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-980-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-980-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-979-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-980-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation