Advertisement

Techniques for Robotic Tubal Surgery

Chapter

Abstract

Robotic tubal reanastomosis allows less experienced laparoscopic surgeons to offer a minimally invasive approach to sterilization reversal. Robotic techniques present several advantages for the surgeon: easier dissection of the tubal ends, better visualization of the tubal lumina for reapproximation, more delicate tissue handling, and more precise placement of fine sutures. Data on pregnancy outcomes after robotic tubal reversal appear comparable with those obtained after classic laparotomy with microsurgery. For women desiring childbearing after tubal ligation, robotic tubal reanastomosis should be considered a viable alternative to in vitro fertilization, especially in younger patients.

Keywords

Robotic Surgery Indigo Carmine Tubal Ligation Intuitive Surgical Tubal Patency 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Zite N, Borrero S. Female sterilisation in the United States. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2011;16:336–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yoon TK, Sung HR, Kang HG, Cha SH, Lee CN, Cha KY. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1121–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:889–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Nos C, Morice P, Aubriot FX, Garnier P. Sterilization reversal: fertility results. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(10):1145–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1175–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rock JA, Guzick DS, Katz E, Zacur HA, King TM. Tubal anastomosis: pregnancy success following reversal of Falope ring or monopolar cautery sterilization. Fertil Steril. 1987;48:13–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caillet M, Vandromme J, Rozenberg S, Paesmans M, Germay O, Degueldre M. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1844–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim JD, Kim KS, Doo JK, Rhyeu CH. A report on 387 cases of microsurgical tubal reversals. Fertil Steril. 1997;68:875–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Gordts S. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1198–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1375–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2660–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations