Visualization of endometriosis: comparative study of 3-dimensional robotic and 2-dimensional laparoscopic endoscopes

Original Article

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to compare results of using the robotic 3D/HD scope and the 2D/HD laparoscope for visual detection of histologically confirmed endometriosis. Three surgeons from different practices enrolled premenopausal women ≥18 years who had elected to undergo robotic-assisted endometriosis resection. Patients were randomized to receive 2D/HD laparoscopic visualization either before or after 3D/HD robotic visualization. Resections then proceeded robotically. The number of histologically confirmed lesions overall and by abdomino-pelvic location, appearance and size was compared by scope type used. During the study, 598 lesions were visualized in 98 patients. Average number of lesions per patient using either scope was 6.1. Mean age was 31 years and 77% were disease stage I/II. On histopathology, 58.4% of lesions resected were consistent with endometriosis. All (100%) of these lesions were detected using the robotic 3D/HD scope and 77.9% using the 2D/HD laparoscope (p < 0.001). Compared to laparoscopic, robotic visualization resulted in detection of more confirmed lesions in all anatomic locations and for most appearances, including the cul-de-sac (100 vs. 79%), atypical appearance (100 vs. 71.3%) and width <5 mm (100 vs. 62%), p’s < 0.001). Logistic regression indicated that use of the 3D/HD robotic scope was independently associated with 2.36 times the likelihood (95% CI 1.20, 4.66; p = 0.014) of detecting a confirmed lesion, compared to the 2D/HD laparoscope. Large-scale, long-term studies are needed to substantiate these findings in multiple practice settings and to determine whether 3D robotic versus 2D laparoscopic resection has a beneficial impact on symptomatology, recurrence and fertility outcomes.

Keywords

Robotic surgery Laparoscopic surgery Endometriosis Pelvic pain Histology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Shilpa Mehendale, MS, MBA and Ali Andreasen, MD, of Intuitive Surgical, Bharathi Lingala, PhD, Stanford University and Helen Hubert, PhD, Consulting Epidemiologist for their support during study execution, analysis and manuscript preparation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Cindy Mosbrucker, MD is a Proctor at Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Anita Somani, MD and John Dulemba, MD were formerly Proctors at Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

Funding

This study was sponsored and funded by Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA in association with the study investigators (co-authors) under a cooperative clinical trial agreement. The authors had full control of the study execution, analysis and development of the manuscript.

Research involving human participants

All procedures performed in these studies were approved by the Institutional Review Board at each site and were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Jones KD, Haines P, Sutton CJ (2001) Long-term follow-up of a controlled trial of laser laparoscopy for pelvic pain. JSLS 5(2):111–115PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giudice LC, Kao LC (2004) Endometriosis. Lancet 364(9447):1789–1799. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17403-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burney RO, Giudice LC (2013) The pathogenesis of endometriosis. In: Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Nezhat C (eds) Nezhat’s video-assisted and robotic-assisted laparoscopy and hysteroscopy, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp 252–259Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abbott JA, Hawe J, Clayton RD, Garry R (2003) The effects and effectiveness of laparoscopic excision of endometriosis: a prospective study with 2–5 year follow-up. Hum Reprod 18(9):1922–1927CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abbott JA, Hawe J, Hunter D, Holmes M, Finn P, Garry R (2004) Laparoscopic excision of endometriosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Fertil Steril 82(4):878–884. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.03.046 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2014) Treatment of pelvic pain associated with endometriosis. Fertil Steril 10(4):927–935. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.02.012 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 Robotic Surg 7:163–169. doi: 10.1007/s11701-012-0361-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carvalho L, Abrao MS, Deshpande A, Falcone T (2012) Robotics as a new surgical minimally invasive approach to treatment of endometriosis: a systematic review. Int J Med Robot 8(2):160–165. doi: 10.1002/rcs.451 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roman JD (2010) Surgical treatment of endometriosis in private practice: cohort study with mean follow-up of 3 years. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(1):42–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2009.09.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chopin N, Vieira M, Borghese B et al (2005) Operative management of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: results on pelvic pain symptoms according to a surgical classification. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(2):106–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frishman GN, Salak JR (2006) Conservative surgical management of endometriosis in women with pelvic pain. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13(6):546–558. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2006.06.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vercellini P, Crosignani PG, Abbiati A, Somigliana E, Viganò P, Fedele L (2009) The effect of surgery for symptomatic endometriosis: the other side of the story. Hum Reprod Update 15(2):177–188. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmn062 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walter AJ, Hentz JG, Magtibay PM, Cornella JL, Magrina JF (2001) Endometriosis: correlation between histologic and visual findings at laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184(7):1407–1413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mettler L, Schollmeyer T, Lehmann-Willenbrock E et al (2003) Accuracy of laparoscopic diagnosis of endometriosis. JSLS 7:15–18PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marchino GL, Gennarelli G, Enria R, Bongioanni F, Lipari G, Massobrio M (2005) Diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis with use of macroscopic versus histologic findings. Fertil Steril 84(1):12–15. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.09.042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stegmann BJ, Sinaii N, Liu S, Segars J, Merino M, Nieman LK, Stratton P (2008) Using location, color, size, and depth to characterize and identify endometriosis lesions in a cohort of 133 women. Fertil Steril 89(6):1632–1636. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stratton P, Winkel C, Premkumar A et al (2003) Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy, magnetic resonance imaging, and histopathologic examination for the detection of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 79(5):1078–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kazanegra R, Zaritsky E, Lathi RB, Clopton P, Nezhat C (2008) Diagnosis of Stage I endometriosis: comparing visual inspection to histologic biopsy specimen. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(2):176–180. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2007.10.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    El Bishry G, Tselos V, Pathi A (2008) Correlation between laparoscopic and histolological diagnosis in patients with endometriosis. J Obstet Gynaecol 28(5):511–515. doi: 10.1080/01443610802217918 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Albee RB, Sinervo K, Fisher DT (2008) Laparoscopic excision of lesions suggestive of endometriosis or otherwise atypical in appearance: relationship between visual findings and final histologic diagnosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(1):32–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2007.08.619 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stratton P, Winkel CA, Sinaii N, Merino MJ, Zimmer C, Nieman LK (2002) Location, color, size, depth, and volume may predict endometriosis in lesion resected at surgery. Fertil Steril 78(4):743–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nezhat C, Lewis M, Kotikela S et al (2010) Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 94(7):2758–2760. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pacific Endometriosis and Pelvic SurgeryGig HarborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyRiverside Methodist HospitalColumbusUSA
  3. 3.The Women’s CentreDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations