Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques

, Volume 16, Issue 9, pp 1271–1273 | Cite as

Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot

  • C. Diaz-Arrastia
  • C. Jurnalov
  • G. Gomez
  • C. Townsend
Original Articles

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to describe the technique of laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced robotic surgical system.

Methods

Eleven patients underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot. Four trocars were used: one for the camera, two for the robotic arms controlled by the operating surgeon from the surgeon’s console, and an additional port for use by the surgical assistant.

Results

Ages ranged from 27 to 77 years, and weight ranged from 54 to 100 kg. Operative time ranged from 4.5 to 10 hours. Estimated blood loss ranged from 50 to 1500 ml. The patients tolerated the procedure and recovered satisfactorily.

Conclusion

This is the first case series reporting the use of a computer-enhanced surgical robot for performing hysterectomy in humans. It is feasible and well tolerated in this series of patients. As this technology develops, the applications for its use in gynecology and gynecologic oncology will increase.

Key words

Hysterectomy Computer-enhanced robotic surgery 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Intern 87: 408–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PR, Cadiere GB (2000) Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril 74: 1020–1023PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Margossian H, Stevens L (2000) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis: a human pilot study. Fertil Steril 73: 1040–1042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kappert U, Cichon R, Schneider J, Gulielmos V, Ahmadzade T, Nicolai J, et al (2001) Technique of closed chest coronary artery surgery on the beating heart. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 20: 765–769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB, Partin AW (1997) Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol 158: 1530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Margossian H, Falcone T (2001) Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and adnexal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Techniques 11: 161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mettler l, Ibrahim M, Jonat W (1998) One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaeocological endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprrd 13: 2748–2750Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olive DL, Parker WH, Cooper JM, Levine RL (2000) The AAGL classification system for laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Am Assoc Gyn Laparosc 7: 9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Partin AW, Adams JB, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR (1995) Complete robot-assisted laparoscopic urologic surgery: a preliminary report. J Am Coll Surg 181: 552–557PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reich H, Decaprio J, McGlynn F (1989) Laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Gynecol Surg 5: 213–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Diaz-Arrastia
    • 1
  • C. Jurnalov
    • 1
  • G. Gomez
    • 2
  • C. Townsend
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Texas Medical BranchGalvestonUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Texas Medical BranchGalvestonUSA

Personalised recommendations