Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in reproductive surgery: a contemporary review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robotic surgery is a conceptual fusion of the conventional open surgery and the minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery. We reviewed the current role of robotic-assisted laparoscopy in the field of reproductive surgery by a literature search in PubMed database. We analyzed the reported advantages and limitations of the use of robotics in reproductive surgeries like myomectomy, tubal reanastomosis, endometriosis, ovarian tissue cryopreservation, and ovarian transposition. Overall, robotic assistance in reproductive surgery resulted in decreased blood loss, less post-operative pain, shorter hospital stay, and faster convalescence, whereas reproductive outcomes were similar to open/laparoscopic approaches. The main drawbacks of robotic surgery were higher cost and longer operating times. It is as safe and effective as the conventional laparoscopy and represents a reasonable alternate to abdominal approach. Procedures that are technically challenging with the conventional laparoscopy can be performed with robotic assistance. It has advantages of improved visualization and Endowrist™ movements allowing precise suturing. This helps to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy, especially in complicated procedures, and may shorten the steep learning curve in minimal invasive surgery. Randomized controlled trials looking at both short- and long-term outcomes are warranted to strengthen the role of robotic surgery in the field of reproductive surgery.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Survey of Family Growth, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2006–2010

  2. Sroga J, Patel SD, Falcone T (2008) Robotics in reproductive medicine. Front Biosci 13:1308–1317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siegler AV, Berenyi KJ (1969) Laparoscopy in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 34:572–575

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society of Reproductive Surgeons (2008) Pathogenesis, consequences, and control of peritoneal adhesions in gynecologic surgery. Fertil Steril 90(5 Suppl):S144–S149

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gutt CN, Oniu T, Schemmer P, Mehrabi A, Buchler MW (2004) Fewer adhesions induced by laparoscopic surgery? Surg Endosc 18:898–906

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Muhlstein J, Monceau E, Lamy C, Tran N, Marchal F, Judlin P et al (2012) Contribution of robot-assisted surgery in the management of female infertility. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 41:409–417

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210:310–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wiegmann DA, ElBardissi AW, Dearani JA, Daly RC, Sundt TM 3rd (2007) Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. Surgery 142:658–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jourdan IC, Dutson E, GarciaA Vleugels T, Leroy J, Mutter D et al (2004) Stereoscopic vision provides a significant advantage for precision robotic laparoscopy. Br J Surg 91:879–885

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Intuitive surgical: annual report 2014. www.intuitivesurgical.com. Accessed 30 June 2016

  11. Stewart EA (2001) Uterine fibroids. Lancet 357:293–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Falcone T, Parker WH (2013) surgical management of leiomyomas for fertility or uterine preservation. Obstet Gynecol 121:856–868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jin C, Hu Y, Chen XC, Zheng FY, Lin F, Zhou K et al (2009) Laparoscopic versus open myomectomy—a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 145:14–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Alessandri F, Lijoi D, Mistrangelo E, Ferrero S, Ragni N (2006) Randomized study of laparoscopic versus minilaparotomic myomectomy for uterine myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13:92–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Palomba S, Zupi E, Russo T et al (2007) A multicenter randomized, controlled study comparing laparoscopic versus minilaparotomic myomectomy: short-term outcomes. Fertil Steril 88:942–951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Seracchioli R, Rossi S, Govoni F et al (2000) Fertility and obstetric outcome after laparoscopic myomectomy of large myomata: a randomized comparison with abdominal myomectomy. Hum Reprod 15:2663–2668

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Falcone T, Bedaiwy MA (2002) Minimally invasive management of uterine fibroids. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 14:401–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu G, Zolis L, Kung R, Melchior M, Singh S, Cook EF (2010) The laparoscopic myomectomy: a survey of Canadian gynaecologists. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 32:139–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Daraï E, Dechaud H, Benifla JL, Renolleau C, Panel P, Madelenat P (1997) Fertility after laparoscopic myomectomy: preliminary results. Hum Reprod 12:1931–1934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Advincula AP, Song A, BurkeW Reynolds RK (2004) Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11:511–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau S 4th, Ransom SB (2007) Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14:698–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Griffin L, Feinglass J, Garrett A et al (2013) Postoperative outcomes after robotic versus abdominal myomectomy. JSLS 17:407–413

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ascher-Walsh CJ, Capes TL (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:306–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Barakat EE, Bedaiwy MA, Zimberg S, Nutter B, Nosseir M, Falcone T (2011) Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 117:256–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mansour FW, Kives S, Urbach DR, Lefebvre G (2012) Robotically assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: a Canadian experience. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 34:353–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gargiulo AR, Srouji SS, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Vellinga T, Einarsson JI (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol 120(2 Pt 1):284–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gocmen A, Sanlikan F, Ucar MG (2013) Comparison of robotic assisted laparoscopic myomectomy outcomes with laparoscopic myomectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287:91–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, Kho RM (2009) Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201(566):e1–e5

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gobern JM, Rosemeyer CJ, Barter JF, Steren AJ (2013) Comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy in a community hospital. JSLS 17:116–120

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Hsu S, Watson J, Barnett O, Lemyre M (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy—a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril 91:556–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Braumann C, Jacobi CA, Menenakos C, Ismail M, Rueckert JC, Mueller JM (2008) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery with the da Vinci system: a 4-year experience in a single institution. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 18:260–266. doi:10.1097/SLE.0b013e31816f85e5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hsiao SM, Lin HH, Peng FS, Jen PJ, Hsiao CF, Tu FC (2013) Comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy and traditional laparoscopic myomectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res s39:1024–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nash K, Feinglass J, Zei C et al (2012) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285:435–440. doi:10.1007/s00404-011-1999-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lonnerfors C, Persson J (2011) Pregnancy following robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy in women with deep intramural myomas. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 90:972–977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. PitterMC Gargiulo AR, Bonaventura LM, Lehman JS, Srouji SS (2013) Pregnancy outcomes following robot-assisted myomectomy. Hum Reprod 28:99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Koo Y-J, Lee J-K, Lee Y-K, Kwak D-W, Lee I-H, Lim K-T, Lee K-H, Kim T-J (2015) pregnancy outcomes and risk factors for uterine rupture after laparoscopic myomectomy: a single-center experience and literature review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:1022–1028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Garnet JD (1964) Uterine rupture during pregnancy. An analysis of 133 patients. Obstet Gynecol 23:898–905

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Parker WH, Einarsson J, Istre O, Dubuisson JB (2010) Risk factors for uterine rupture after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:551–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Spong CY, Landon MB, Gilbert S, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Varner MW et al (2007) Risk of uterine rupture and adverse perinatal outcome at term after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 110:801–807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Iavazzo C, Mamais I, Gkegkes ID (2016) Robotic assisted vs laparoscopic and/or open myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical evidence. Arch Gynecol Obstet 294(1):5–17. doi:10.1007/s00404-016-4061-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. U.S Food and Drug Administration. Laparoscopic uterine power morcellation in hysterectomy and myomectomy: FDA safety communication, issued April 17, 2014. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm393576.htm. Accessed June 1, 2016

  42. Senapati S, Tu FF, Magrina JF (2015) Power morcellators: a review of current practice and assessment of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212:18–23. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gargiulo AR, Bailey AP, Srouji SS (2013) Robot-assisted single-incision laparoscopic myomectomy: initial report and technique. J Robot Surg 7:137–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lewis EI, Srouji SS, Gargiulo AR (2015) Robotic single-site myomectomy: initial report and technique. Fertil Steril 103(5):1370–1377.e1. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chong GO, Lee YH, Hong DG, Cho YL, Lee YS (2015) Robotic hysterectomy or myomectomy without power morcellation: a single-port assisted three-incision technique with manual morcellation. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg. doi:10.1002/rcs.1668

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gargiulo AR, Choussein S, Srouji SS, Cedo LE, Escobar PF (2016) Coaxial robot assisted laparoendoscopic single-site myomectomy. J Robot Surg. doi:10.1007/s11701-016-0603-y

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2015). World contraceptive use 2015 (POP/DB/CP/Rev2015)

  48. Borrero SB, Reeves MF, Schwarz EB, Bost JE, Creinin MD, Ibrahim SA (2008) Race, insurance status, and desire for tubal sterilization reversal. Fertil Steril 90(2):272–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Schmidt JE, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Jeng G, Peterson HB (2000) Requesting information about and obtaining reversal after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. collaborative review of sterilization. Fertil Steril 74(5):892–898

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Deffieux X, Morin Surroca M, Faivre E, Pages F, Fernandez H, Gervaise A (2011) Tubal anastomosis after tubal sterilization: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283:1149–1158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Falcone T, Goldberg J, Garcia-Ruiz A, Margossian H, Stevens L (1999) Full robotic assistance for laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: a case report. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech Part A 9:107–113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Goldberg JM, Falcone T (2003) Laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis with and without robotic assistance. Hum Reprod 18(1):145–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T (2007) Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 109:1375–1380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA (2008) Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril 90:1175–1179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Caillet M, Vandromme J, Rozenberg S, Paesmans M, Germay O, Degueldre M (2010) Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril 94:1844–1847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gocmen A, Sanlıkan F, Ucar MG (2013) Robot-assisted tubal reanastomosis: initial experience in a single institution. Taiwan Obstet Gynecol 52:77–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kavoussi SK, Kavoussi KM, Lebovic DI (2014) Robotic-assisted tubal anastomosis with one-stitch technique. J Robot Surg 8(2):133–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Koninckx PR, Ussia A, Adamyan L, Wattiez A, Donnez J (2012) Deep endometriosis: definition, diagnosis, and treatment. Fertil Steril 98(3):564–571. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Crosignani PG, Vercellini P, Biffignandi F, Costantini W, Cortesi I, Imparato E (1996) Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in conservative surgical treatment for severe endometriosis. Fertil Steril 66:706–711

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Schipper E, Nezhat C (2012) Video-assisted laparoscopy for the detection and diagnosis of endometriosis: safety, reliability, and invasiveness. Int J Womens Health 4:383–393

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Magrina JF, Espada M, Kho RM, Cetta R, Chang Y-HH, Magtibay PM (2015) Surgical excision of advanced endometriosis: perioperative outcomes and impacting factors. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:944–950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nezhat FR, Sirota I (2014) Perioperative outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy surgery for advanced-stage endometriosis. JSLS: J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 18(4):e2014.00094. doi:10.4293/JSLS.2014.00094

  63. Dulemba JF, Pelzel C, Hubert HB (2013) Retrospective analysis of robot assisted versus standard laparoscopy in the treatment of pelvic pain indicative of endometriosis. J Robot Surg 7:163–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Nezhat C, Lewis M, Kotikela S et al (2010) Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 94:2758–2760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Magrina JF, Cornella JL, Nygaard IE et al (1996) Endometriosis involving the lower urinary tract, part II: surgical treatment. J Pelvic Surg 2:176–181

    Google Scholar 

  66. Darai E, Thomassin I, Barranger E et al (2005) Feasibility and clinical outcome of laparoscopic colorectal resection for endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:394–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Nezhat C, Hajhosseini B, King LP (2011) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic treatment of bowel, bladder, and ureteral endometriosis. JSLS 15:387–392

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Ercoli A, D’asta M, Fagotti A et al (2012) Robotic treatment of colorectal endometriosis: technique, feasibility and short-term results. Hum Reprod 27:722–726

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Siesto G, Ieda N, Rosati R, Vitobello D (2014) Robotic surgery for deep endometriosis: a paradigm shift. Int J Med Robot 10:140–146. doi:10.1002/rcs.1518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Vitobello D, Fattizzi N, Santoro G, Rosati R, Baldazzi G, Bulletti C, Palmara V (2013) Robotic surgery and standard laparoscopy: a surgical hybrid technique for use in colorectal endometriosis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 39:217–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Cassini D, Cerullo G, Miccini M, Manoochehri F, Ercoli A, Baldazzi G (2014) Robotic hybrid technique in rectal surgery for deep pelvic endometriosis. Surg Innov 21:52–58. doi:10.1177/1553350613487804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Neme RM, Schraibman V, Okazaki S, Maccapani G, Chen WJ, Domit CD, Kaufmann OG, Advincula AP (2013) Deep infiltrating colorectal endometriosis treated with robotic-assisted rectosigmoidectomy. JSLS 17:227–234. doi:10.4293/108680813X13693422521836

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Collinet P, Leguevaque P, Neme RM, Cela V, Barton-Smith P, Hébert T, Hanssens S, Nishi H, Nisolle M (2014) Robot-assisted laparoscopy for deep infiltrating endometriosis: international multicentric retrospective study. Surg Endosc 28:2474–2479. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3480-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Brudie Lorna A, Gaia Giorgia, Ahmad Sarfraz, Finkler Neil J, BigsbyIV Glenn E, Ghurani Giselle B, KendrickIV James E, Rakowski Joseph A, Groton Jessica H, Holloway Robert W (2012) Peri-operative outcomes of patients with stage IV endometriosis undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery. J Robot Surg. 6:317–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Morelli L, Perutelli A, Palmeri M, Guadagni S, Mariniello MD, Di Franco G, Cela V, Brundu B, Salerno MG, Di Candio G, Mosca F (2016) Robot-assisted surgery for the radical treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis with colorectal involvement: short- and mid-term surgical and functional outcomes. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:643–652. doi:10.1007/s00384-015-2477-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Pellegrino A, Damiani GR, Trio C, Faccioli P, Croce P, Tagliabue F, Dainese E (2015) robotic shaving technique in 25 patients affected by deep infiltrating endometriosis of the rectovaginal space. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:1287–1292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Guan X, Nguyen MT, Walsh TM, Kelly B (2016) Robotic single site endometriosis resection using firefly technology. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23:10–11. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Lue JR, Pyrzak A, Allen J (2016) Improving accuracy of intraoperative diagnosis of endometriosis: role of firefly in minimal access robotic surgery. J Minim Access Surg. 12:186–189. doi:10.4103/0972-9941.158969

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Oktay K, Karlikaya G (2000) Ovarian function after transplantation of frozen, banked autologous ovarian tissue. N Engl J Med 342:1919

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Donnez J, Dolmans MM, Demylle D, Jadoul P, Pirard C, Squifflet J et al (2004) Livebirth after orthotopic transplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue. Lancet 364:1405–1410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Sanchez-Serrano M, Crespo J, Mirabet V, Cobo AC, Escriba MJ, Simon C et al (2010) Twins born after transplantation of ovarian cortical tissue and oocyte vitrification. Fertil Steril 93(268):e11–e13

    Google Scholar 

  82. Oktay K, Oktem O (2010) Ovarian cryopreservation and transplantation for fertility preservation for medical indications: report of an ongoing experience. Fertil Steril 93:762–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Mayerhofer K, Ott J, Nouri K (2010) Laparoscopic ovarian tissue harvesting for cryopreservation: an effective and safe procedure for fertility preservation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 152:68–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Akar ME, Carrillo AJ, Jennell JL, Yalcinkaya TM (2011) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic ovarian tissue transplantation. Fertil Steril. 95:1120.e5-8. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.039

  85. Oktay K, Bedoschi G, Pacheco F, Turan V, Emirdar V (2016) First pregnancies, live birth, and in vitro fertilization outcomes after transplantation of frozen-banked ovarian tissue with a human extracellular matrix scaffold using robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 214:94.e1-9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.10.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Al-Badawi I, Al-Aker M, Tulandi T (2010) Robotic assisted ovarian transposition before radiation. Surg Technol Int. 19:141–143

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Barton SE, Politch JA, Benson CB, Ginsburg ES, Gargiulo AR (2011) Transabdominal follicular aspiration for oocyte retrieval in patients with ovaries inaccessible by transvaginal ultrasound. Fertil Steril 95:1773–1776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Pahisa J, Martinez-Roman S, Martinez-Zamora MA et al (2008) Laparoscopic ovarian transposition in patients with early cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 18:584–589

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Behera MA, Likes CE 3rd, Judd JP, Barnett JC, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM (2012) Cost analysis of abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted myomectomies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 19(1):52–57. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2011.09.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Herron DM, Marohn M. A consensus document on robotic surgery prepared by the SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group. Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons http://www.sages.org

  92. Chauhan Sanket, Coelho Rafael Ferreira, Kalan Satyam, Satava Richard M, Patel Vipul R (2012) Evolution of robotic surgery: past, present, and future. In: Patel Vipul R (ed) Robotic urologic surgery, 2nd edn. Springer, London, pp 3–10

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Orlando, FL, USA

    Jayapriya Jayakumaran, Sejal D. Patel, Bhushan K. Gangrade & Celso Silva

  2. Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Deepa Maheswari Narasimhulu

  3. Lifeline Superspeciality Hospital, Adoor, Kerala, India

    Soundarya Ramanatha Pandian

Authors
  1. Jayapriya Jayakumaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sejal D. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bhushan K. Gangrade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deepa Maheswari Narasimhulu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Soundarya Ramanatha Pandian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Celso Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jayapriya Jayakumaran.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Jayapriya Jayakumaran, Sejal D. Patel, Bhushan K. Gangrade, Deepa Maheswari Narasimhulu, Soundarya Ramanatha Pandian, and Celso Silva declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jayakumaran, J., Patel, S.D., Gangrade, B.K. et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in reproductive surgery: a contemporary review. J Robotic Surg 11, 97–109 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0682-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0682-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation