Abstract
Types of robotic radical hysterectomy, indications for robotic radical hysterectomy and a step-by-step description with illustrations of the surgical procedure are provided. Comparison of surgical and oncologic outcomes between patients undergoing laparoscopic, robotic, and abdominal radical hysterectomy are reviewed. Lastly, postoperative management for robotic radical hysterectomy is described.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Piver MS, Rutledge F, Smith JP. Five classes of extended hysterectomy for women with cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1974;44:265–72.
Sert BM, Abeler VM. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (Piver type III) with pelvic node dissection–case report. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006;27:531–3.
Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, et al. A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:357 e1–7.
Cantrell LA, Mendivil A, Gehrig PA, Boggess JF. Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;117:260–5.
Hoogendam JP, Verheijen RH, Wegner I, Zweemer RP. Oncological outcome and long-term complications in robot-assisted radical surgery for early stage cervical cancer: an observational cohort study. BJOG. 2014;121:1538–45.
Li G, Yan X, Shang H, Wang G, Chen L, Han Y. A comparison of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy and laparotomy in the treatment of Ib-IIa cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;105:176–80.
Wysham WZ, Kim KH, Roberts JM, et al. Obesity and perioperative pulmonary complications in robotic gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(1):33.e1–7.
Estape R, Lambrou N, Diaz R, Estape E, Dunkin N, Rivera A. A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:357–61.
Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Feltmate CM. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:425–30.
Lowe MP, Chamberlain DH, Kamelle SA, Johnson PR, Tillmanns TD. A multi-institutional experience with robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:191–4.
Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Neugut AI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127:11–7.
Sert BM, Boggess JF, Ahmad S, Jackson AL, Stavitzski NM, Dahl AA, Holloway RW. Robotic versus open yype III radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional experience for early stage cervical cancer. Soc Gyencol Oncol. Chicago, IL2015
Vilos GA, Ternamian A, Dempster J, Laberge PY, The Society of O, Gynaecologists of C. Laparoscopic entry: a review of techniques, technologies, and complications. J Obstet Gynaecol Can(JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC). 2007;29:433–65.
Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Committee opinion no. 620: Salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:279–81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barber, E.L., Boggess, J.F. (2018). Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy. In: Alkatout, I., Mettler, L. (eds) Hysterectomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_67
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_67
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22496-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22497-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)