Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 231–233 | Cite as

Robotic surgery for adnexal masses in pregnancy

  • Lauren A. Baldwin
  • Iwona Podzielinski
  • Scott T. Goodrich
  • Leigh G. Seamon
Case Report


Adnexal masses are a common finding during pregnancy with an incidence of one in 600 pregnancies [1]. A simple cyst occurs in 76% of cases, compared to a multi-cystic or complex mass in 24% [2]. Simple-appearing cystic masses can be managed expectantly; however, rapid growth, complex ultrasonographic characteristics (papillary projections or solid components), or concerns over complications including ovarian torsion or hemorrhage may lead to surgical intervention [3].

Fortunately, only 1% of adnexal masses in pregnancy are malignant [4]. If surgical exploration is necessary, retrospective studies have demonstrated the feasibility, safety, and advantages of minimally invasive surgery over traditional open techniques [5, 6]. We conducted a literature search using Ovid MEDLINE®1950 to November week 4 2010 using the search terms “pregnancy, robotics, da Vinci” with restrictions to the English language. There were no publications describing the use of robotic surgery for...


Adnexal Mass Ovarian Mass Mature Teratoma Cystic Teratoma Ovarian Torsion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Al-Fozan H, Tulandi T (2002) Safety and risks of laparoscopy in pregnancy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 14:375–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernhard L, Klebba P, Gray D, Mutch D (1999) Predictors of persistence of adnexal masses in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 93:585–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caspi B, Levi R, Appelman Z, Rabinerson D, Goldman G, Hagay Z (2000) Conservative management of ovarian cystic teratoma during pregnancy and labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:503–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leiserowitz G (2006) Managing ovarian masses during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 61:463–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Akira S, Yamanaka A, Ishihara T, Takeshita T, Araki T (1999) Gasless laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy during pregnancy: Comparison with laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:554–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soriano D, Yefet Y, Seidman DS, Goldenberg M, Mashiach S, Oelsner G (1999) Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the management of adnexal masses during pregnancy. Fertil Steril 71:955–960PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS et al (2009) Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol 113:36–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Noble BN, Kho RM, Magtibay P (2010) Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.045 (published online ahead of print 29 Dec 2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren A. Baldwin
    • 1
  • Iwona Podzielinski
    • 1
  • Scott T. Goodrich
    • 1
  • Leigh G. Seamon
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyThe University of Kentucky College of MedicineLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations