Robotic-Assisted Surgery Entry in Gynecological Oncology

  • Farr R. Nezhat
  • Shao-Chun R. Chang-Jackson


Laparoscopic surgery has profoundly revolutionized the concept of minimally invasive surgery in the last three decades [1]. Studies have clearly shown that laparoscopy has several advantages compared with laparotomy, including faster postoperative recuperation, shorter hospitalization course, cosmetic benefits, improved intraoperative visualization, decreased blood loss, and fewer complications [2, 3]. Despite these factors, several drawbacks exist with conventional laparoscopy. These include two-dimensional views, counterintuitive hand movements, a gradual learning curve, operator fatigue, and tremor amplification [4, 5]. Computer-enhanced telesurgery, called robotic-assisted surgery, is the latest innovation in the minimally invasive surgery field. It attempts to overcome the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopy by offering improved dexterity, coordination, and visualization, and decreasing surgeon fatigue [6].


Endometrial Cancer Robotic Surgery Pelvic Lymphadenectomy Conventional Laparoscopy Camera Port 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Nezhat CH. Nezhat’s operative gynecologic laparoscopy with hysteroscopy. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1752–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mais V, Ajossa S, Guerriero S, Mascia M, Solla E, Melis GB. Laparoscopic versus abdominal myomectomy: a prospective, randomized trial to evaluate benefits in early outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:654–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stylopoulos N, Rattner D. Robotics and ergonomics. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83:1321–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desimone CP, Ueland FR. Gynecologic laparoscopy. Surg Clin North Am. 2008;88:319–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nezhat C, Saberi NS, Shahmohamady B, Nezhat F. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in gynecological surgery. JSLS. 2006;10:317–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, Hayati S. A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1988;35:153–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davies BL, Hibberd RD, Coptcoat MJ, Wickham JE. A surgeon robot prostatectomy: a laboratory evaluation. J Med Eng Technol. 1989;13:273–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauer A, Borner M, Lahmer A. Clinical experience with a medical robotic system for total hip replacement. In: Nolte LP, Ganz R, editors. Computer assisted orthopedic surgery. Bern: Hogrefe & Huber; 1999. p. 128–33.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Satava RM. Robotic surgery: from past to future–a personal journey. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83:1491–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Advincula AP, Song A. The role of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:331–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sert BM, Abeler VM. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (Piver type III) with pelvic node dissection—case report. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006;27:531–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cho JE, Nezhat FR. Robotics and gynecologic oncology: review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:669–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim YT, Kim SW, Hyung WJ, Lee SJ, Nam EJ, Lee WJ. Robotic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical carcinoma: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108:312–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fanning J, Fenton B, Purohit M. Robotic radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:649. e1-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sert BM, Abeler VM. 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;3:224–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zakashansky K, Chuang L, Gretz H, Nagarsheth NP, Rahaman J, Nezhat FR. A case-controlled study of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in a fellowship training program. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17:1075–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boggess J, Gehrig P, Cantrell L, et al. A case control study of robotic assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;19:357–9.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lambaudie E, Houvenaeghel G, Walz J, et al. Robot- assisted laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:2743–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Felmate CM. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:425–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109:86–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Molpus KL, Wedergren JS, Carlson MA. Robotically assisted endoscopic ovarian transposition. JSLS. 2003;7:59–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic oncology group study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5331–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DeNardis SA, Holloway RW, Bigsby GE, Pikaart DP, Ahmad S, Finkler NJ. Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:412–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Diaz-Arrastia C, Jurnalov C, Gomez G, Townsend Jr C. Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:1271–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Field JB, Benoit MF, Dinh TA, Diaz-Arrastia C. Computer-enhanced robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:244–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Veljovich DS, Paley PJ, Drescher CW, Everett EN, Shah C, Peters 3rd WA. Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:679. e1-9; discussion 679. e9-10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reynolds RK, Burke WM, Advincula AP. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic staging of gynecologic malignancies. JSLS. 2005;9:149–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marchal F, Rauch P, Vandromme J, Laurent I, Lobontiu A, Ahcel B, et al. Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign and oncologic pathologies: initial clinical experience with 30 patients. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:826–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, et al. Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature. 2001;413:379–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PT, Cadière GB. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:1020–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:407–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cho JE, Shamshirsaz AH, Nezhat C, Nezhat C, Nezhat F. New technologies for reproductive medicine: laparoscopy, endoscopy, robotic surgery and gynecology. A review of the literature. Minerva Ginecol. 2010;62:137–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farr R. Nezhat
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shao-Chun R. Chang-Jackson
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of Gynecologic Oncology and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySt. Luke’s-Roosevelt Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Minimally Invasive Gynecologic SurgerySt. Luke’s-Roosevelt Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations