Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Devices in Gynecology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotic Surgery Devices in Surgical Specialties

  • 268 Accesses

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery has enabled more surgeons to perform delicate video laparoscopic surgeries. In gynecology, robotic surgery is used for benign and malignant diseases, with the flagship da Vinci platform approved in 2005. New other platforms are also fighting for market space. This chapter addresses the various platforms available to date with a focus on da Vinci, the various gynecological procedures, and perspectives for the future.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Margossian H, Garcia-Ruiz A, Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Attaran M, Miller JH, Gagner M. Robotically assisted laparoscopic tubal anastomosis in a porcine model: a pilot study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1998;8:69–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alkatout I, Mettler L, Maass N, Ackermann J. Robotic surgery in gynecology. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2016;17:224–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Oleynikov D. Robotic surgery. Surg Clin N Am. 2008;88:1121–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Freschi C, Ferrari V, Melfi F, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A. Technical review of the da Vinci surgical telemanipulator. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2013;9:396–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gosrisirikul C, Don Chang K, Raheem AA, Rha KH. New era of robotic surgical systems. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2018;11:291–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gomes MTV, Machado AMN, Podgaec S, Barison GAS. Initial experience with single-port robotic hysterectomy. Einstein. 2017;15:476–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Han ES, Advincula AP. Robotic surgery: advancements and inflection points in the field of gynecology. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021;48:759–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rao PP. Robotic surgery: new robots and finally some real competition! World J Urol. 2018;36:537–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peters BS, Armijo PR, Krause C, Choudhury SA, Oleynikov D. Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:1636–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jena A-K-T. Home—avateramedical. www.avatera.eu/en/avatera-system. 2020. Accessed 5 Jan 2022.

  11. Chang KD, Raheem AA, Choi YD, Chung BH, Rha KH. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the Revo-i robotic surgical system: surgical technique and results of the first human trial. BJU Int. 2018;122:441–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Profile V. Medicaroid’s hinotori surgical robot system approved in Japan. 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Koukourikis P, Rha KH. Robotic surgical systems in urology: what is currently available? Investig Clin Urol. 2021;62:14–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Millan B, Nagpal S, Ding M, Lee JY, Kapoor A. A scoping review of emerging and established surgical robotic platforms with applications in urologic surgery. SIUJ. 2021;2:300–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moon AS, Garofalo J, Koirala P, Vu M-LT, Chuang L. Robotic surgery in gynecology. Surg Clin North Am. 2020;100:445–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu D, Dowswell T, Song H, Wang L, Shi G. Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4:CD011422.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Giacomoni A, Concone G, Di Sandro S, Lauterio A, De Carlis L. The meaning of surgeon’s comfort in robotic surgery. Am J Surg. 2014;208:871–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Visco AG, Advincula AP. Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1369–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. White S, Agarwal S, Ratnayake A. Anaesthesia for robotic gynaecological surgery. In: Textbook of gynecologic robotic surgery; 2018. p. 9–12.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Website.

  21. Einarsson JI, Hibner M, Advincula AP. Side docking: an alternative docking method for gynecologic robotic surgery. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2011;4:123–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. [No title]. https://www.intuitive.com/en-us/-/media/ISI/Intuitive/Pdf/xi-x-ina-catalog-no-pricing-us-1052082.pdf. Accessed 4 Apr 2022.

  23. Monterossi G, Pedone Anchora L, Gueli Alletti S, Fagotti A, Fanfani F, Scambia G. The first European gynaecological procedure with the new surgical robot Hugo™ RAS. A total hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy in a woman affected by BRCA-1 mutation. Facts Views Vis ObGyn. 2022;14:91–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. McCarus SD. Senhance robotic platform system for gynecological surgery. JSLS. 2021;25:e2020.00075. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2020.00075.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Montlouis-Calixte J, Ripamonti B, Barabino G, Corsini T, Chauleur C. Senhance 3-mm robot-assisted surgery: experience on first 14 patients in France. J Robot Surg. 2019;13:643–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Panico G, Campagna G, Vacca L, Caramazza D, Pizzacalla S, Rumolo V, Scambia G, Ercoli A. The Senhance ® assisted laparoscopy in urogynaecology: case report of sacral colpopexy with subtotal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for pelvic organ prolapse : video article, to see the video use this link: https://qrco.de/bbdi3G. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2020;12:245–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Siaulys R, Klimasauskiene V, Janusonis V, Ezerskiene V, Dulskas A, Samalavicius NE. Robotic gynaecological surgery using Senhance® robotic platform: single Centre experience with 100 cases. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50:102031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Falavolti C, Gidaro S, Ruiz E, Altobelli E, Stark M, Ravasio G, Ravasio G, Lazzaretti SS, Buscarini M. Experimental nephrectomies using a novel Telesurgical system: (the Telelap ALF-X)-a pilot study. Surg Technol Int. 2014;25:37–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Raheem AA, Troya IS, Kim DK, Kim SH, Won PD, Joon PS, Hyun GS, Rha KH. Robot-assisted fallopian tube transection and anastomosis using the new REVO-I robotic surgical system: feasibility in a chronic porcine model. BJU Int. 2016;118:604–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Morton J, Hardwick RH, Tilney HS, Gudgeon AM, Jah A, Stevens L, Marecik S, Slack M. Preclinical evaluation of the versius surgical system, a new robot-assisted surgical device for use in minimal access general and colorectal procedures. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:2169–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Thomas BC, Slack M, Hussain M, Barber N, Pradhan A, Dinneen E, Stewart GD. Preclinical evaluation of the Versius surgical system, a new robot-assisted surgical device for use in minimal access renal and prostate surgery. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:444–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Puntambekar SP, Goel A, Chandak S, Chitale M, Hivre M, Chahal H, Rajesh KN, Manerikar K. Feasibility of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) with a new robotic system. Experience at galaxy care laparoscopy institute. J Robot Surg. 2021;15:451–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jena A-K-T. Made in Germany—avateramedical. https://www.avatera.eu/en/company/made-in-germany. Accessed 9 Jan 2022.

  34. Whooley S. Johnson & Johnson discloses two-year delay for ottava robot. In: MassDevice; 2021. https://www.massdevice.com/johnson-johnson-hits-snag-in-ottava-surgical-robot-development/. Accessed 4 Apr 2022.

  35. Diaz-Arrastia C, Jurnalov C, Gomez G, Townsend C Jr. Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:1271–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Payne TN, Dauterive FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:286–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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 

  38. Rivas-López R, Sandoval-García-Travesí FA. Robotic surgery in gynecology: review of literature. Cir Cir. 2020;88:107–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Truong M, Kim JH, Scheib S, Patzkowsky K. Advantages of robotics in benign gynecologic surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28:304–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gomes MTV, Costa Porto BT, Parise Filho JP, Vasconcelos AL, Bottura BF, Marques RM. Safety model for the introduction of robotic surgery in gynecology. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018;40:397–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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;117:256–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Giudice LC. Clinical practice. Endometriosis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2389–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Kho RM, Andres MP, Borrelli GM, Neto JS, Zanluchi A, Abrão MS. Surgical treatment of different types of endometriosis: comparison of major society guidelines and preferred clinical algorithms. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;51:102–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Restaino S, Mereu L, Finelli A, et al. Robotic surgery vs laparoscopic surgery in patients with diagnosis of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2020;14:687–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Luu THA, Jean Uy-Kroh M. New developments in surgery for endometriosis and pelvic pain. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;60:245–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Soares T, Oliveira MA, Panisset K, Habib N, Rahman S, Klebanoff JS, Moawad GN. Diaphragmatic endometriosis and thoracic endometriosis syndrome: a review on diagnosis and treatment. Horm Mol Biol Clin Invest. 2021;43:137. https://doi.org/10.1515/hmbci-2020-0066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Delara R, Suárez-Salvador E, Magrina J, Magtibay P. Robotic excision of full-thickness diaphragmatic endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:815.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ko KJ, Lee K-S. Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for treatment of apical compartment prolapse. Int Neurourol J. 2020;24:97–110.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, et al. Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1895–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Falconer H, Palsdottir K, Stalberg K, et al. Robot-assisted approach to cervical cancer (RACC): an international multi-center, open-label randomized controlled trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29:1072–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nitecki R, Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Krause KJ, Tergas AI, Wright JD, Rauh-Hain JA, Melamed A. Survival after minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1019–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Obermair A, Asher R, Pareja R, et al. Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222:249.e1–249.e10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Salvo G, Pareja R, Ramirez PT. Minimally invasive radical trachelectomy: considerations on surgical approach. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;75:113–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Dargent D, Martin X, Sacchetoni A, Mathevet P. Laparoscopic vaginal radical trachelectomy. Cancer. 2000;88:1877–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic oncology group study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5331–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Lucidi A, Chiantera V, Gallotta V, Ercoli A, Scambia G, Fagotti A. Role of robotic surgery in ovarian malignancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;45:74–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Noble BN, Kho RM, Magtibay P. Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:100–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Gallotta V, Cicero C, Conte C, Vizzielli G, Petrillo M, Fagotti A, Chiantera V, Costantini B, Scambia G, Ferrandina G. Robotic versus laparoscopic staging for early ovarian cancer: a case-matched control study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24:293–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Nezhat FR, Finger TN, Vetere P, Radjabi AR, Vega M, Averbuch L, Khalil S, Altinbas SK, Lax D. Comparison of perioperative outcomes and complication rates between conventional versus robotic-assisted laparoscopy in the evaluation and management of early, advanced, and recurrent stage ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:600–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bush SH, Apte SM. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecological oncology. Cancer Control. 2015;22:307–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Minig L, Iserte PP, Zorrero C, Zanagnolo V. Robotic surgery in women with ovarian cancer: surgical technique and evidence of clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:309–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Iavazzo C, Gkegkes ID. Port-site metastases in patients with gynecological cancer after robot-assisted operations. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292:263–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Seror J, Bats A-S, Bensaïd C, Douay-Hauser N, Ngo C, Lécuru F. Risk of port-site metastases in pelvic cancers after robotic surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:599–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Molpus KL, Wedergren JS, Carlson MA. Robotically assisted endoscopic ovarian transposition. JSLS. 2003;7:59–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Baiocchi G, Vieira M, Moretti-Marques R, Mantoan H, Faloppa C, Damasceno RCF, Paula SOC, Tsunoda AT, Ribeiro R. Uterine transposition for gynecological cancers. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:442–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Odetto D, Saadi JM, Chacon CB, Wernicke A, Ribeiro R. Uterine transposition after radical trachelectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021;31:1374–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Marques RM, Tsunoda AT, Dias RS, Pimenta JM, Linhares JC, Ribeiro R. Robotic uterine transposition for a cervical cancer patient with pelvic micrometastases after conization and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020;30:898–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Corinti M, Ramos GGF, Bezerra VA, Barison GA, Moretti-Marques R, Vieira Gomes MT. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy for abdominal cerclage and correction of amniotic fistula. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28:S139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Barmat L, Glaser G, Davis G, Craparo F. Da Vinci-assisted abdominal cerclage. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:1437.e1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil

    Renato Moretti-Marques, Mariana Corinti, Vanessa Alvarenga-Bezerra, Luisa Marcella Martins & Mariano Tamura Vieira Gomes

Authors
  1. Renato Moretti-Marques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mariana Corinti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vanessa Alvarenga-Bezerra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luisa Marcella Martins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mariano Tamura Vieira Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    João Pádua Manzano

  2. Plastic Surgery Department, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Lydia Masako Ferreira

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Moretti-Marques, R., Corinti, M., Alvarenga-Bezerra, V., Martins, L.M., Gomes, M.T.V. (2023). Robotic Devices in Gynecology. In: Manzano, J.P., Ferreira, L.M. (eds) Robotic Surgery Devices in Surgical Specialties. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35102-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35102-0_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-35101-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-35102-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation