Skip to main content

Robotic Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology: Updates and Innovations

Abstract

Surgical advances in minimally invasive surgery, including laparoscopic and robotics, have revolutionized the practice of medicine and surgery in gynecologic oncology. During this time, an emphasis has been made to improve quality metrics such as complications, readmissions, and length of stay. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement has recommended health systems and surgeons to improve performance focused on better care, better quality, and better cost. Minimally invasive surgery may help to achieve these measures and serve as the foundation upon which these goals are reached. Despite the availability of laparoscopic tools at many hospitals, the majority of patients who had gynecologic cancer surgery in the United States had a laparotomy prior to the introduction of robot-assisted surgery. Reasons for this have been attributed to limitations of laparoscopy, which include 2D vision and rigid instruments without articulation. One of the greatest advancements in gynecologic surgery occurred in 2005, when the FDA approved the da Vinci surgical platform (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) for use in gynecologic surgery. This platform provides a 3D vision system paired with wristed articulating instruments. Together, these enhancements may overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopy allowing for surgeons to perform less open surgery. The introduction of robotics in 2005 has led to an increase in minimally invasive surgery and significantly less open surgery – especially for the gynecologic oncology patient. This review will focus on recent advancements in robotic surgery in the field of gynecology oncology. It will also discuss the role for standardizing education and training through the development of training and educational networks to improve surgical outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, et al. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(32):5331–6.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gaia G, Holloway RW, Santoro L, Ahmad S, Di Silverio E, Spinillo A. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1422–31.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shashoua AR, Gill D, Locher SR. Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS. 2009;13(3):364–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nicole N, Rachel C, Michael M, et al. Robotic Assisted, Total Laparoscopic, and Total Abdominal Hysterectomy for Management of Uterine Cancer. J Cancer Ther. 2012;3(2):162–6.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Abunnaja S, Cuviello A, Albini MS, Mirmehdi I, Shah J, Sanchez JA. Robotic surgery in gynecology: program initiation and early outcomes at a community hospital. Conn Med. 2013;77(4):223–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Leitao MM, Bartashnik A, Wagner I, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotically assisted laparoscopy for newly diagnosed uterine cancers. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1031–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A, Abaid LN, Mendivil A, Boggess JF. What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111(1):41–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ramirez PT, Adams S, Boggess JF, et al. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology consensus statement. Developed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology's Clinical Practice Robotics Task Force. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124(2):180–4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Frumovitz M, Ramirez PT, Greer M, Gregurich MA, Wolf J, Bodurka DC, et al. Laparoscopic training and practice in gynecologic oncology among Society of Gynecologic Oncologists members and fellows-in-training. Gynecol Oncol. 2004;94:746–53.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Weinberg L1, Rao S, Escobar PF. Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2011;2011:852061. doi: 10.1155/2011/852061. Epub 2011 Nov 28.

  11. Frumovitz M, Dos Reis R, Sun CC, et al. Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(1):96–102.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ramirez PT, Slomovitz BM, Soliman PT, Coleman RL, Levenback C. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy: the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;102(2):252–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Marchal, Rauch P, Vandromme J, et al. Telerobotic- assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign and oncologic pathologies: initial clinical experience with 30 patients. Surg Endosc and Other Interv Tech. 2005;19(6):826–31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, et al. A case–control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(4):357 e1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(1):86–91.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nick AM, Frumovitz MM, Soliman PT, et al. Fertility sparing surgery for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer: open vs. robotic radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:276–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Persson J, Imboden S, Reynisson P, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of robot-assisted laparoscopic fertility sparing radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127:484–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Diaz JP, Sonoda Y, Leitao MM, et al. Oncologic outcome of fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy versus radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;111:255–60.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Obermair A, Gebski V, Frumovitz M, et al. A phase III randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy with abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):584–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(5):277–300.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Iglesias DA, Ramirez PT. Role of minimally invasive surgery in staging of ovarian cancer. Curr Treat Options in Oncol. 2011;12(3):217–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Escobar PF, Levinson KL, Magrina J, et al. Feasibility and perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery in the management of recurrent ovarian cancer: A Multi-institutional study. Gynecol Oncol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.05.007.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Escobar PF, Falcone T. Atlas of single-Port, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery. NY: Springer Science; 2014. p. 318. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6840-0.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Escobar PF, Kebria M, Falcone T. Evaluation of a novel single-port robotic platform in the cadaver model for the performance of various procedures in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(3):380–4. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.11.005. Epub 2011 Jan 8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vizza E, Corrado G, Mancini E, Baiocco E, Patrizi L, Fabrizi L, et al. Robotic single-site hysterectomy in low risk endometrial cancer: a pilot study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(8):2759–64.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Tergas AI, et al. An economic analysis of robotically assisted hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1038–48.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Martino MA, Berger EA, Mcfetridge JT, et al. A comparison of quality outcome measures in patients having a hysterectomy for benign disease: robotic vs. non-robotic approaches. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(3):389–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stine JE, Clarke-Pearson DL, Gehrig PA. Uterine Morcellation at the Time of Hysterectomy: Techniques, Risks, and Recommendations. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2014;69(7):415–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mechcatie, E. FDA panel recommends informed consent, labeling changes to address morcellator risk. Retrieved at: http://www.acssurgerynews.com/news/single-view/fda-panel-recommends-informed-consent-labeling-changes-to-address-morcellator-risk/8f454e8ecead8d261aac4fe3fb0518c7.html

  30. Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: a general overview. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15:988–94. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00227.x.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gladwell M. Outliers: The Story of Success. 1st ed. New York: Little, Brown and Company; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Macnamara BN, Hambrick DZ, Oswald FL. Deliberate Practice and Performance in Music, Games, Sports, Education, and Professions: A Meta-Analysis. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(8):1608–18.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Siddiqui NY, Galloway ML, Geller EJ, et al. Validity and reliability of the robotic Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1193–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Martino MA, Siddiqui NY, Levy J. (2014). Institute for Surgical Excellence. Retrieved from surgicalexcellence.org

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Pedro F. Escobar, Dr. Pilar E. Silva, Dr. Joshua A. Makhoul, and Dr. Martin A. Martino each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro F. Escobar.

Additional information

Updates and Innovations in Gynecologic Oncology: Advances in Robotic-Assisted Surgery

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Escobar, P.F., Silva, P.E., Makhoul, J.A. et al. Robotic Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology: Updates and Innovations. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 3, 246–251 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-014-0101-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-014-0101-z

Keywords

  • Gynecologic oncology
  • Robotic surgery
  • Minimally invasive surgery
  • Gynecology
  • Obstetrics