Abstract
Robotic tubal reanastomosis allows less experienced laparoscopic surgeons to offer a minimally invasive approach to sterilization reversal. Robotic techniques present several advantages for the surgeon: easier dissection of the tubal ends, better visualization of the tubal lumina for reapproximation, more delicate tissue handling, and more precise placement of fine sutures. Data on pregnancy outcomes after robotic tubal reversal appear comparable with those obtained after classic laparotomy with microsurgery. For women desiring childbearing after tubal ligation, robotic tubal reanastomosis should be considered a viable alternative to in vitro fertilization, especially in younger patients.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Zite N, Borrero S. Female sterilisation in the United States. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2011;16:336–40.
Yoon TK, Sung HR, Kang HG, Cha SH, Lee CN, Cha KY. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1121–6.
Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:889–95.
Dubuisson JB, Chapron C, Nos C, Morice P, Aubriot FX, Garnier P. Sterilization reversal: fertility results. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(10):1145–51.
Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1175–9.
Rock JA, Guzick DS, Katz E, Zacur HA, King TM. Tubal anastomosis: pregnancy success following reversal of Falope ring or monopolar cautery sterilization. Fertil Steril. 1987;48:13–7.
Caillet M, Vandromme J, Rozenberg S, Paesmans M, Germay O, Degueldre M. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1844–7.
Kim JD, Kim KS, Doo JK, Rhyeu CH. A report on 387 cases of microsurgical tubal reversals. Fertil Steril. 1997;68:875–80.
Gordts S, Campo R, Puttemans P, Gordts S. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1198–202.
Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1375–80.
Boeckxstaens A, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2660–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Flyckt, R. (2014). Techniques for Robotic Tubal Surgery. In: Escobar, P., Falcone, T. (eds) Atlas of Single-Port, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6840-0_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6840-0_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6839-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6840-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)