Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Myomectomy versus Traditional Laparoscopic Myomectomy: Are They the Same?

  • Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (S Puntambekar, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relative pros and cons of robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM) and laparoscopic myomectomy (LM) are still debated. The short-term surgical outcomes such as estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusion, intra-operative complications, and conversion to laparotomy are similar for RALM and LM. Although RALM was previously thought to require longer operative time when compared to LM, recent studies show comparative surgical duration. On longer follow-up, high pregnancy rates and low pregnancy morbidity have been reported for both surgical approaches. The increased cost of RALM when compared to LM may be amortized in high-volume surgical centers. Specimen removal via power morcellation is limited by the FDA safety communication, but strategies for “contained” power and cold-knife morcellation may prevent unintentional fibroid spread. To conclude, RALM and LM are both safe minimally invasive alternatives to open abdominal myomectomy. Future technical developments may allow for the widespread implementation of single-site RALM and LM.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Baird DD, Dunson DB, Hill MC, Cousins D, Schectman JM. High cumulative incidence of uterine leiomyoma in black and white women: ultrasound evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:100–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vilos GA, Allaire C, Laberge PY, Leyland N, Vilos AG, Murji A, Chen I. The management of uterine leiomyomas. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37:157–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stewart EA. Uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1646–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Mazzon I, Bramante S, Bettocchi S, Bifulco G, Guida M, Nappi C. Hysteroscopic myomectomy: a comprehensive review of surgical techniques. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:101–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Iavazzo C, Mamais I, Gkegkes ID. Robotic assisted vs laparoscopic and/or open myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical evidence. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;295:5–17 A meta-analysis and comprehensive review of the literature on the relative pros and cons of laparotomic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted myomectomy.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chamberlain G. The master of myomectomy. J R Soc Med. 2003;96:302–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Semm K, Mettler L. Technical progress in pelvic surgery via operative laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980;138:121–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tsui C, Klein R, Garabrant M. Minimally invasive surgery: national trends in adoption and future directions for hospital strategy. Surg Endosc. 2013l;27:2253–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Advincula AP, Song A, Burke W, Reynolds RK. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2004;11:511–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barakat EE, Bedaiwy MA, Zimberg S, Nutter B, Nosseir M, Falcone T. Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:256–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gargiulo AR, Srouji SS, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Vellinga TT, Einarsson JI. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:284–91 The largest retrospective study comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted myomectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, Kho RM. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:566.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Göçmen A, Şanlıkan F, Uçar MG. Comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy outcomes with laparoscopic myomectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287:91–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. Pluchino N, Litta P, Freschi L, Russo M, Simi G, Santoro AN, Angioni S, Gadducci A, Cela V. Comparison of the initial surgical experience with robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Int J Med Robot. 2014;10:208–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gobern JM, Rosemeyer CJ, Barter JF, Steren AJ. Comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy in a community hospital. JSLS. 2013;17:116–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hsiao SM, Lin HH, Peng FS, Jen PJ, Hsiao CF, Tu FC. Comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy and traditional laparoscopic myomectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013;39:1024–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hickman LC, Kotlyar A, Shue S, Falcone T. Hemostatic techniques for myomectomy: an evidence-based approach. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:497–504 A review on the different techniques for reducing blood loss during myomectomy, applicable for all surgical routes.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang Y, Ma D, Li X, Zhang Q. Role of barbed sutures in repairing uterine wall defects in laparoscopic myomectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:684–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Alton K, Sullivan S, Udaltsova N, Yamamoto M, Zaritsky E. Same-day discharge after minimally invasive myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:539–44 Interesting study describing the protocol for same-day discharge following minimally invasive myomectomy, showing low rates of re-admissions.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schär G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:604–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T, Einarsson JI. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:368.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, Brubaker L, Bresee C, Kenton K. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:5–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Bhave Chittawar P, Franik S, Pouwer AW, Farquhar C. Minimally invasive surgical techniques versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;10:CD004638.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pundir J, Pundir V, Walavalkar R, Omanwa K, Lancaster G, Kayani S. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic vs abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:335–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pitter MC, Gargiulo AR, Bonaventura LM, Lehman JS, Srouji SS. Pregnancy outcomes following robot-assisted myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:99–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Buckley VA, Nesbitt-Hawes EM, Atkinson P, Won HR, Deans R, Burton A, Lyons SD, Abbott JA. Laparoscopic myomectomy: clinical outcomes and comparative evidence. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:11–25 An Interesting review study summarizing clinically and surgically important data on laparoscopic myomectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pitter MC, Srouji SS, Gargiulo AR, Kardos L, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hubert HB, Weitzman GA. Fertility and symptom relief following robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2015;2015:967–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Purohit P, Vigneswaran K. Fibroids and infertility. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2016;5:81–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Metwally M, Cheong YC, Horne AW. Surgical treatment of fibroids for subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD003857.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pritts EA, Parker WH, Olive DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1215–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Food and Drug Administration. Updated laparoscopic uterine power morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy: FDA safety communication. 2014. www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm424443.htm

  33. Barron KI, Richard T, Robinson PS, Lamvu G. Association of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration morcellation warning with rates of minimally invasive hysterectomy and myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:1174–80 A recent study demonstrating the large impact of the FDA morcellation warning on the rates of minimally invasive myomectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pritts EA, Vanness DJ, Berek JS, Parker W, Feinberg R, Feinberg J, Olive DL. The prevalence of occult leiomyosarcoma at surgery for presumed uterine fibroids: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Surg. 2015;12:165–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Parker WH, Kaunitz AM, Pritts EA, Olive DL, Chalas E, Clarke-Pearson DL, Berek JS, Leiomyoma Morcellation Review Group. U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s guidance regarding morcellation of leiomyomas: well-intentioned, but is it harmful for women? Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:18–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Venturella R, Rocca ML, Lico D, La Ferrera N, Cirillo R, Gizzo S, Morelli M, Zupi E, Zullo F. In-bag manual versus uncontained power morcellation for laparoscopic myomectomy: randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:1369–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cardozo ER, Clark AD, Banks NK, Henne MB, Stegmann BJ, Segars JH. The estimated annual cost of uterine leiomyomata in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:211.e1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Behera MA, Likes 3rd CE, Judd JP, Barnett JC, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM. Cost analysis of abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted myomectomies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19:52–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. O’Sullivan OE, O’Carroll M, Hewitt M, O’Reilly BA. Gynaecological robotic surgery in an Irish setting—cost analysis. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10:129–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Song T, Kim TJ, Lee SH, Kim TH, Kim WY. Laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy compared with conventional laparoscopic myomectomy: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1325–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gargiulo AR, Lewis EI, Kaser DJ, Srouji SS. Robotic single-site myomectomy: a step-by-step tutorial. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:e13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Ruth and Bruce and Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Joseph H. Nathan

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel

    Nir Shvalb

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Affiliated with Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Noam Smorgick

Authors
  1. Joseph H. Nathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nir Shvalb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Noam Smorgick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Joseph H. Nathan or Noam Smorgick.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Joseph H. Nathan and Noam Smorgick declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Nir Shvalb declares having licensed the patent numbered US9039057 B2.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nathan, J.H., Shvalb, N. & Smorgick, N. Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Myomectomy versus Traditional Laparoscopic Myomectomy: Are They the Same?. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 5, 341–347 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0182-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0182-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation