Robotic Radical Hysterectomy: Surgical Technique

Chapter

Abstract

Radical hysterectomy remains the preferred method of treatment for patients with early cervical cancer (FIGO stages IA2-IB1-IIA1). The incorporation of robotic technology in the USA and other countries changed the avenue from laparotomy to a minimally invasive approach, something that laparoscopic technology did not fully do. Some of the major advantages of robot-assisted over conventional laparoscopy are its superior visualization (3D versus 2D) imaging of the operative field), its mechanical improvements such as its seven degrees of freedom (similar to the human arm and hand, while rigid conventional instruments have four degrees of freedom), the stabilization of instruments within the surgical field (in conventional laparoscopy, small movements by the surgeon are amplified including hand tremor), and its improved ergonomics for the operating surgeon. The technique of robotic radical hysterectomy or robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy will be described in this chapter. The reader must be knowledgeable of the indications, limitations, and location of metastatic nodes to indicate or not a robotic approach and to determine whether preoperative chemoradiotherapy is needed. Whenever chemoirradiation is contemplated, the radical hysterectomy should be avoided due to the increased morbidity of using both treatment modalities. In these cases systematic pelvic and aortic lymphadenectomy is done to limit the irradiation field.

Keywords

Cervical cancer Minimally invasive surgery Radical hysterectomy Robotic radical hysterectomy Nervesparing 

Notes

Conflict of Interest

The authors have neither commercial, proprietary, nor financial interests in the products and companies described in this chapter.

References

  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Gil-Ibáñez B, Díaz-Feijoo B, Pérez-Benavente A, Puig-Puig O, Franco-Camps S, Centeno C, Xercavins J, Gil-Moreno A. Nerve sparing technique in robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy: results. Int J Med Robot. 2013;9(3):339–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Okabayashi H. Radical abdominal hysterectomy for cancer of the cervix uteri, modification of the Takayama operation. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1921;33:335–41.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Symmonds RE. Some surgical aspects of gynecologic cancer. Cancer. 1975;36(2):649–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Querleu D, Morrow CP. Classification of radical hysterectomy. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:297–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sakamoto S, Takizawa K. An improved radical hysterectomy with fewer urological complications and with no loss of therapeutic results for invasive cervical cancer. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1988;2(4):953–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cibula D, Velechovska P, Sláma J, Fischerova D, Pinkavova I, Pavlista D, et al. Late morbidity following nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(3):506–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van den Tillaart SA, Kenter GG, Peters AA, Dekker FW, Gaarenstroom KN, Fleuren GJ, Trimbos JB. Nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy: local recurrence rate, feasibility, and safety in cervical cancer patients stage IA to IIA. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(1):39–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klauschie J, Wechter ME, Jacob K, Zanagnolo V, Montero R, Magrina J, Kho R. Use of anti-skid material and patient-positioning to prevent patient shifting during robotic-assisted gynecologic procedures. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 Jul-Aug;17(4):504–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leblanc E, Narducci F, Frumovitz M, Lesoin A, Castelain B, Baranzelli MC, Taieb S, Fournier C, Querleu D. Therapeutic value of pretherapeutic extraperitoneal laparoscopic staging of locally advanced cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:304–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gold MA, Tian C, Whitney CW, Rose PG, Lanciano R. Surgical versus radiographic determination of para-aortic lymph node metastases before chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical carcinoma. A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer. 2008;112:1954–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gil-Moreno A, Magrina JF, Pérez-Benavente A, Díaz-Feijoo B, Sánchez-Iglesias JL, García A, Cabrera-Díaz S, Puig O, Martínez-Gómez X, Xercavins J. Location of aortic node metastases in locally advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(2):312–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Magrina JF, Long JB, Kho RM, Giles DL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM. Robotic transperitoneal infrarenal aortic lymphadenectomy: technique and results. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20(1):184–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Díaz-Feijoo B, Correa-Paris A, Pérez-Benavente A, Franco-Camps S, Sánchez-Iglesias JL, Cabrera S, de la Torre J, Centeno C, Puig OP, Gil-Ibañez B, Colas E, Magrina J, Gil-Moreno A. Prospective randomized trial comparing transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal laparoscopic aortic lymphadenectomy for surgical staging of endometrial and ovarian cancer: the STELLA trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(9):2966–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unit of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyHospital Materno-Infantil Vall d’HebronBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMayo Clinic ArizonaPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations