Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology: Hype or Hope

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Gynecologic Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Introduction of robotic-assisted surgery has revolutionized the practice of Gynae oncology because of its usefulness in meticulous and precise dissection. The advantages of robotic approach include manual dexterity, wider range of motion with wristed instruments, filtration of hand tremor, ease of suturing, binocular three-dimensional vision, autonomy for the surgeon, better ergonomic control, better visualization and lesser fatigue, thus allowing surgeon to perform complex oncological operations with required precision. The main limitation of robotics is cost, availability and technical challenges. The purpose of this article is to assess the current state of robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology and to critically appraise the available literature.

Results

Robotic radical hysterectomy is safe and offers good oncological outcome in patients with carcinoma cervix. There is paucity of data regarding long-term outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomies. For carcinoma endometrium, robotic surgery is preferable to open surgery and is equivalent to laparoscopy in many respects and offers distinct advantages in morbidly obese population. The role of robotic surgery in ovarian cancer is not very clearly defined. In India, robotic-assisted surgery for cervical and endometrial cancer is developing.

Conclusion

Despite limitations with respect to cost-effectiveness and the institution of standardized training regimens persist, the evidence supports the emerging role of robotic-assisted surgery for the management of gynecologic malignancies. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecological oncology is promising.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Sinno AK, Fader AN. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:922–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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;124:180–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Somashekhar SP, Jaka RC, Zaveri SS. Prospective randomized study comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy and regional lymphadenectomy with traditional laparotomy for staging of endometrial carcinoma—initial Indian experience. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2014;5(3):217–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Mabrouk M, Frumovitz M, Greer M, et al. Trends in laparoscopic and robotic surgery among gynecologic oncologists: a survey update. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(3):501–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Conrad LB, Ramirez PT, Burke W, et al. Role of minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology:an updated survey of members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(6):1121–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Finan MA, Rocconi RP. Overcoming technical challenges with robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1256–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;109(1):86–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kruijdenberg CB, Van Den Einden LC, Hendriks JC, Zusterzeel PL, Bekkers RL. Robot-assisted versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer, a review. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(3):334–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Neugut AI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;127(1):11–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Puntambekar S, Agarwal G, Joshi SN, Rayate NV, Puntambekar SS, Sathe RM. Robotic oncological surgery: our initial experience of 164 cases. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2012;3(2):96–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Asciutto KC, Kalapotharakos G, Löfgren M, Högberg T, Borgfeldt C. Robot-assisted surgery in cervical cancer patients reduces the time to normal activities of daily living. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94:260–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sert BM, Boggess JF, Ahmad S, Jackson AL, Stavitzski NM, Dahl AA, Holloway RW. Robot-assisted versus open radical hysterectomy: a multi-institutional experience for early-stage cervical cancer. Eur J surg oncol. 2016;42(4):512–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Krill LS, Bristow RE. Robotic surgery: gynecologic oncology. Cancer J. 2013;19(2):167–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Segaert A, Traen K, Van Trappen P, et al. Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy in cervical carcinoma: the Belgian experience. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(9):1690–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vergote I, Pouseele B, Van Gorp T, et al. Robotic retroperitoneal lower para-aortic lymphadenectomy in cervical carcinoma: first report on the technique used in 5 patients. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(7):783–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Diaz-Feijoo B, Gil-Ibanez B, Perez-Benavente A, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopy for extraperitoneal paraaortic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132(1):98–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fleming ND, Ramirez PT. Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Curr Opin Oncol. 2012;24(5):547–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Paley PJ, Veljovich DS, Shah CA, et al. Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: analysis of first 1000 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(6):551-e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(6):1422–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Eklind S, Lindfors A, Sjöli P, Dahm-Kähler P. A prospective, comparative study on robotic versus open-surgery hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for endometrial carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(2):250–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rajanbabu A, Murali V, Nataraj YS, et al. Detection of sentinel lymph nodes in endometrial cancer with intracervical indocyanine green injection and robotically assisted near infrared imaging: a feasibility study in Indian setting. Indian J Gynecol Oncol. 2015;1(13):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Magrina JF, Zanagnolo V, Noble BN, Kho RM, Magtibay P. Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121:100–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Feuer GA, Lakhi N, Barker J, Salmieri S, Burrell M. Perioperative and clinical outcomes in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer using a robotic or abdominal approach. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131:520–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Marino P, Houvenaeghel G, Narducci F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of conventional vs robotic-assisted laparoscopy in gynecologic oncologic indications. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(6):1102–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Reynisson P, Persson J. Hospital costs for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:95–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lim PC, Kang E, Park DH. A comparative detail analysis of the learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in treatment of endometrial cancer: a case-matched controlled study of the first one hundred twenty two patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(3):413–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yim GW, Kim SW, Nam EJ, Kim S, Kim YT. Learning curve analysis of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: initial experience at a single institution. J Gynecol Oncol. 2013;24(4):303–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Dogra PN. Current status of robotic surgery in India. JIMSA. 2012;25(3):145.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Seema Singhal

Authors
  1. Seema Singhal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seema Singhal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singhal, S. Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology: Hype or Hope. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 15, 43 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-017-0135-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-017-0135-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation