Robot-assisted gynecological surgery in a community setting

  • Johann M. Piquion-Joseph
  • Anju Nayar
  • Armine Ghazaryan
  • Ramesha Papanna
  • Waldemar Klimek
  • Rahul Laroia
Original Article

Abstract

The objective of this study is to review our experience using the da Vinci robotic system to perform various gynecological surgeries for benign indications. Between July 2005 and April 2008, 110 patients underwent robot-assisted gynecological surgeries in Rochester General Hospital, NY. The records of these patients were retrospectively reviewed by an independent data collector to analyze the safety, effectiveness, and outcome of the surgeries done using the robotic system. The parameters reviewed include indication for surgery, type of procedure, operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, and intraoperative and post operative complications. The procedures completed include 74 hysterectomies including hysterectomies with bilateral salpingoophorectomy, 15 hysterectomies with sacrocolpopexy and other concomitant procedures, 18 myomectomies, and 3 oophorectomies. All procedures were completed robotically without the need for conversion to an open approach. The mean operation time was 2.15 h. Average estimated blood loss was 160 cc. Complications encountered include one cystotomy which was identified immediately and repaired in addition to one vault dehiscence and two post operative infections. The mean hospital stay was 1 day, with more than half of the patients being discharged within 24 h after the surgery. Post operative pain level was in the range of 0–6 in a scale of 0–10 (0: no pain, 10: worst pain in their life) and relieved by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Robot-assisted laparoscopic benign surgical procedures are feasible techniques in a community setting. Robot-assisted laparoscopy has a promising future in minimally invasive surgery as it proved beneficial for our patients who experienced low complication rate and overall fast recovery compared to other approaches.

Keywords

Robot-assisted surgery Hysterectomy Myomectomy Sacrocolpopexy da Vinci Laparoscopy 

References:

  1. 1.
    Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R et al (1994) Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988–1990. Obstet Gynecol 83(4):549–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farquhar CM, Steiner CA (2002) Hysterectomy rates in the United States 1990–1997. Obstet Gynecol 99(2):229–234. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01723-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olive DL, Parker WH, Cooper JM, Levine RL (2000) The AAGL classification system for laparoscopic hysterectomy. Classification Committee of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 7(1):9–15. doi:10.1016/S1074-3804(00)80004-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jenkins TR (2004) Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(6):1875–1884. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.096 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perino A, Cucinella G, Venezia R et al (1999) Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy: an assessment of the learning curve in a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 14(12):2996–2999. doi:10.1093/humrep/14.12.2996 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vogeli TA, Burchardt M, Fornara P et al (2002) Current laparoscopic practice patterns in urology: results of a survey among urologists in Germany and Switzerland. Eur Urol 42(5):441–446. doi:10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00399-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diaz-Arrastia C, Jurnalov C, Gomez G, Townsend C Jr (2002) Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot. Surg Endosc 16(9):1271–1273. doi:10.1007/s00464-002-8523-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reynolds RK, Advincula AP (2006) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 191(4):555–560. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.01.011 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PT, Cadiere GB (2000) Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril 74(5):1020–1023. doi:10.1016/S0015-0282(00)01543-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Margossian H, Falcone T (2001) Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy and adnexal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 11(3):161–165. doi:10.1089/10926420152389314 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 gynaecological endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod 13(10):2748–2750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elliott DS, Chow GK, Gettman M (2006) Current status of robotics in female urology and gynecology. World J Urol 24(2):188–192. doi:10.1007/s00345-006-0071-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leminen A (2000) Comparison between personal learning curves for abdominal and laparoscopic hysterectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 79(12):1100–1104. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.2000.0790121100.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johann M. Piquion-Joseph
    • 1
  • Anju Nayar
    • 1
  • Armine Ghazaryan
    • 1
  • Ramesha Papanna
    • 1
  • Waldemar Klimek
    • 1
  • Rahul Laroia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyRochester General HospitalRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations