Abstract
Hysterectomy is one of the most commonly performed gynecologic procedures. Historically, an abdominal, vaginal, or laparoscopic approach was utilized. With the advent of robotic technology, a new approach to hysterectomy is available to the surgeon. Although recent studies suggest that there are minimal differences in complications and outcomes between a laparoscopic approach compared to a robot-assisted laparoscopic approach, potential advantages of robotic surgery include its wristed instrumentation, three-dimensional immersive visualization, and increased surgical precision. This chapter discusses a robotic laparoscopic approach to hysterectomy with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. We will describe the technique and discuss issues that can arise during robotic surgery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
ACOG Committee opinion no. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(5):1156–8.
Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BW, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database SystRev. 2015;8:CD003677. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5.
Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, et al. Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010;252(2):254–62.
Albright BB, Witte T, Tofte AN, Chou J, Black JD, Desai VB, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(1):18–27.
Swenson CW, Kamdar NS, Harris JA, Uppal S, Campbell DA Jr, Morgan DM. Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5):650.
Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689–98.
Mäenpää MM, Nieminen K, Tomás EI, Laurila M, Luukkaala TH, Mäenpää JU, Maenpaa MM, Nieminen K, Tomas EI, Laurila M, Luukkaala TH, Maenpaa JU. Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ame J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5):588.
Blecha S, Harth M, Schlachetzki F, Zeman F, Blecha C, Flora P, et al. Changes in intraocular pressure and optic nerve sheath diameter in patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in steep 45 degrees Trendelenburg position. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017;17(1):40.
Hoshikawa Y, Tsutsumi N, Ohkoshi K, Serizawa S, Hamada M, Inagaki K, et al. The effect of steep Trendelenburg positioning on intraocular pressure and visual function during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(3):305–8.
Raman SR, Jamil Z. Well leg compartment syndrome after robotic prostatectomy: a word of caution. J Robot Surg. 2009;3(2):105–7.
Ulm MA, Fleming ND, Rallapali V, Munsell MF, Ramirez PT, Westin SN, et al. Position-related injury is uncommon in robotic gynecologic surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135(3):534–8.
van den Haak L, Alleblas C, Nieboer TE, Rhemrev JP, Jansen FW. Efficacy and safety of uterine manipulators in laparoscopic surgery: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(5):1003–11.
Uccella S, Ghezzi F, Mariani A, Cromi A, Bogani G, Serati M, et al. Vaginal cuff closure after minimally invasive hysterectomy: our experience and systematic review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(2):119.e1–12.
Tsafrir Z, Palmer M, Dahlman M, Nawfal AK, Aoun J, Taylor A, et al. Long-term outcomes for different vaginal cuff closure techniques in robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;210:7–12.
Landeen LB, Hultgren EM, Kapsch TM, Mallory PW. Vaginal cuff dehiscence: a randomized trial comparing robotic vaginal cuff closure methods. J Robot Surg. 2016;10(4):337–41.
Rettenmaier MA, Abaid LN, Brown JV 3rd, Mendivil AA, Lopez KL, Goldstein BH. Dramatically reduced incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence in gynecologic patients undergoing endoscopic closure with barbed sutures: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2015;19:27–30.
Raine-Bennett T, Tucker LY, Zaritsky E, Littell RD, Palen T, Neugebauer R, et al. Occult uterine sarcoma and Leiomyosarcoma: incidence of and survival associated with Morcellation. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(1):29–39.
Spagnolo E, Bassi E, Ferrari S, Rossitto C, Campagna G, Scambia G, et al. Extra-corporeal in-bag manual Morcellation for uterine specimen extraction: analysis of 350 consecutive cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(6S):S107–8.
Serur E, Zambrano N, Brown K, Clemetson E, Lakhi N. Extracorporeal manual Morcellation of very large uteri within an enclosed endoscopic bag: our 5-year experience. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(6):903–8.
Iavazzo C, Gkegkes ID. Robotic assisted hysterectomy in obese patients: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293(6):1169–83.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Han, E.S., Lee, S.J. (2018). Hysterectomy with Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy. In: Fong, Y., Woo, Y., Hyung, W., Lau, C., Strong, V. (eds) The SAGES Atlas of Robotic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91045-1_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91045-1_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91043-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91045-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)