Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robot-assisted surgery:—impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery

  • Clinical Opinion
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The da Vinci® Surgical System dominates robotic surgery, as the only robotic device to have FDA approval in gynaecology. The benefits of robot-assisted surgery include decreased length of stay, decreased blood loss and analgesic requirements. Ergonomic improvements allow the surgeon to operate with less risk of neck and back injury. Unfortunately the initial economic impact of purchasing and maintaining a robot are great but must be balanced with the potential savings from reduced length of stay and earlier return to normal activity. This review looks at the uses for the robot in both gynaecology and urogynaecology, assessing the efficacy of this modality compared to both straight stick (laparoscopy) and open procedures. We assess the benefits to both patient and surgeon from the available literature. Within the current economic environment we appraise the costs associated with the robot.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reza M et al (2010) Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg 97(12):1772–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Advincula AP, Falcone T (2004) Laparoscopic robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 31(3):599–609, ix–x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K, Cimon K et al (2011) Robot-Assisted Surgery Compared with Open Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery: Clinical Effectiveness and Economic Analyses. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health

  4. Camberlin C, Senn A, Leys M, De Laet C (2009) Robot-assisted surgery: health technology assessment. B.H.C.K.C. (KCE), Editor

  5. Secretariat MA (2010) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive Surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology. O.H.T.A.S. 2010, Editor

  6. Thavaneswaran, P.e.a., Robotic-assisted surgery for urological, cardiac and gynaecological procedures., ASERNIP-S, Editor 2009: Adelaide

  7. HIQA, Health technology assessment of robot-assisted surgery in selected surgical procedures, H.I.a.Q. Authority, Editor 2012: Dublin

  8. Maher CM et al (2011) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J 22(11):1445–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ganatra AM et al (2009) The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol 55(5):1089–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Akladios CY et al (2010) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for female genital organ prolapse: establishment of a learning curve. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 149(2):218–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Claerhout F et al (2009) Medium-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy beyond the learning curve. Eur Urol 55(6):1459–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Subramanian D et al (2009) Rate, type, and cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Germany, France, and England. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 144(2):177–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Paraiso MF et al (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol

  14. White WM et al (2009) Single-port laparoscopic abdominal sacral colpopexy: initial experience and comparative outcomes. Urology 74(5):1008–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(5):589–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Daneshgari F et al (2007) Robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy/sacrouteropexy repair of advanced female pelvic organ prolaspe (POP): utilizing POP-quantification-based staging and outcomes. BJU Int 100(4):875–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Geller EJ et al (2008) Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 112(6):1201–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Elliott DS, Krambeck AE, Chow GK (2006) Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol 176(2):655–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gocmen A, Sanlikan F, Ucar MG (2011) Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy/sacrocervicopexy repair of pelvic organ prolapse: initial experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet

  20. Gilleran JP, Johnson M, Hundley A (2010) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy. Ther Adv Urol 2(5–06):195–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wattiez A (2003) Laparoscopic repair of vaginal vault prolapse. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 15:315–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chan SS et al (2011) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without robotic assistance. Hong Kong Med J 17(1):54–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Di Marco DS et al (2004) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 63(2):373–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Freilich DA et al (2010) Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified Glasgow Children’s Benefit Inventory Survey. The Journal of urology 183(2):704–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ridgeway B, Frick AC, Walter MD (2008) Hysteropexy. A review. Minerva ginecologica 60(6):509–28

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Maher CF, Carey MP, Murray CJ (2001) Laparoscopic suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Obstetrics and gynecology 97(6):1010–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Krause HG et al (2006) Laparoscopic sacral suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Int Urogynecolog J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(4):378–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Feiner B, Gietelink L, Maher C (2010) Anterior vaginal mesh sacrospinous hysteropexy and posterior fascial plication for anterior compartment dominated uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 21(2):203–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR (2010) Laparoscopic hysteropexy: the initial results of a uterine suspension procedure for uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG 117(1):62–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cvach K, Dwyer P (2011) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: abdominal and vaginal approaches. World J Urol

  31. Busby G, Broome J (2010) Successful pregnancy outcome following laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for second degree uterine prolapse. Gynecol Surg 7:271–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lewis CM, Culligan P (2011) Sacrohysteropexy followed by successful pregnancy and eventual reoperation for prolapse. Int Urogynecol J

  33. Vitobello D, Siesto G, Bulletti C (2012) Robotic sacral hysteropexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Med Robot

  34. Melamud O et al (2005) Laparoscopic vesicovaginal fistula repair with robotic reconstruction. Urology 65(1):163–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Sundaram BM, Kalidasan G, Hemal AK (2006) Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula: case series of five patients. Urology 67(5):970–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Reynolds R, Advincula AP (2006) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 191:555–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bell MC et al (2008) Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):407–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Boggess JF et al (2008) 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 199(4):357, e1-7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Boggess JF et al (2008) A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(4):360, e1-9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. DeNardis SA et al (2008) Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):412–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Estape R et al (2009) A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 113(3):357–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Geisler JP et al (2010) Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy compared with open radical hysterectomy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20(3):438–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gocmen A, Sanlikan F, Ucar MG (2010) Comparison of robotic-assisted surgery outcomes with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging in Turkey. Arch Gynecol Obstet 282(5):539–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Cantrell LA et al (2010) Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience. Gynecol Oncol 117(2):260–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Veljovich DS et al (2008) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(6):679 e1-9; discussion 679 e9-10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schreuder HW et al (2010) From open radical hysterectomy to robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer: aspects of a single institution learning curve. Gynecol Surg 7(3):253–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Seamon LG et al (2009) Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 114(1):16–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nam EJ et al (2010) A case-control study of robotic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy using 3 robotic arms compared with abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 20(7):1284–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Nevadunsky N, Clark R, Ghosh S, Muto M, Berkowitz R, Vitonis A et al (2010) Comparison of robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy for treatment of endometrial cancer in obese and morbidly obese patients. J Robot Surg 4(4):247–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Matthews CA et al (2010) Evaluation of the introduction of robotic technology on route of hysterectomy and complications in the first year of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(5):499, e1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lowe MP (2009) A comparson of robot-assisted and traditional radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. J Robot Surg 3(1):19–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Maggioni A et al (2009) Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study. Gynecol Oncol 115(1):60–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Goel M, Zollinger T, Moore D (2011) Surgical staging of endometrial cancer: robotic versus open technique outcomes in a contemporary single surgeon series. J Robot Surg 5(2):109–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Halliday D, Lau S, Vaknin Z, Deland C, Levental M, McNamara E (2010) et al, Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison of outcomes and cost. Journal of Robotic Surgery 4(4):211–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gocmen A, Sanlikan F, Ucar M (2010) Comparison of outcomes between laparotomy and robotic technique for cervical cancer. J Robot Surg 4(2):123–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Jung YW et al (2010) Robot-assisted staging using three robotic arms for endometrial cancer: comparison to laparoscopy and laparotomy at a single institution. J Surg Oncol 101(2):116–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ko EM et al (2008) Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):425–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Cardenas-Goicoechea J et al (2010) Surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer are equivalent to traditional laparoscopic staging at a minimally invasive surgical center. Gynecol Oncol 117(2):224–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Gehrig PA et al (2008) What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol 111(1):41–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Giep BN, Giep HN, Hubert HB (2010) Comparison of minimally invasive surgical approaches for hysterectomy at a community hospital: robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. J Robot Surg 4(3):167–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Holtz DO et al (2010) Endometrial cancer surgery costs: robot vs laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(4):500–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lim PC, Kang E, Park do H (2011) 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 120(3):413–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Nezhat C et al (2009) Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: stanford experience. JSLS 13(2):125–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Payne TN, Dauterive FR (2008) A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):286–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Sarlos D et al (2010) Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150(1):92–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Seamon LG et al (2009) Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol 113(1):36–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Sert B, Abeler V (2007) Robotic radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical carcinoma patients, comparing results with total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy cases. The future is now? Int J Med Robot 3(3):224–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Dharia Patel SP et al (2008) Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril 90(4):1175–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Cronin C, Hewitt M, Harley I, O’Donoghue K, O’Reilly BA (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic cervical cerclage as an interval procedure. Gynecological Surgery. in press

  71. Barakat EE et al (2011) Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 117(2 Pt 1):256–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ascher-Walsh CJ, Capes TL (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(3):306–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Nezhat C et al (2010) Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 94(7):2758–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Magrina JF et al (2009) Robotic adnexectomy compared with laparoscopy for adnexal mass. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):581–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Lambaudie E et al (2010) Role of robot-assisted laparoscopy in adjuvant surgery for locally advanced cervical cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 36(4):409–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Yim GW et al (2011) Role of robot-assisted surgery in cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 21(1):173–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Pasic R, Rizzo J, Fang H (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(1):730–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Judd JP et al (2010) Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(4):493–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Subak LL et al (2001) Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 98(4):646–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Banta D (2003) The development of health technology assessment. Health policy 63(2):121–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Banta HD, Gelband H, Jonsson E, Battista R (1994) Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries. Health Policy 30:1–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Bokhari MB et al (2011) Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 25(3):855–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Seamon LG et al (2009) A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecologic oncology 114(2):162–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Akl MN et al (2009) Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 23(10):2390–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Kramer BA et al (2009) Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as management for pelvic organ prolapse. J Endourol 23(4):655–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Elliott DS (2007) Assessment of the durability of robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. J Robotic Surg 1:163–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Muffly T et al (2009) An evaluation of knot integrity when tied robotically and conventionally. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(5):e18–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Yohannes P et al (2002) Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology 60(1):39–45, discussion 45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Ng JS et al (2011) Gynaecologic robot-assisted cancer and endoscopic surgery (GRACES) in a tertiary referral centre. Ann Acad Med Singapore 40(5):208–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Coelho RF et al (2009) Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a review of current outcomes. BJU Int 104(10):1428–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Coelho RF et al (2010) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol 24(12):2003–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Klein J, Goezen AS, Leber D (2010) The role of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the era of robotic surgery. European Urology, Supplements 9(3):379–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Okamura AM (2009) Haptic feedback in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Curr Opin Urol 19(1):102–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Lawson EH, Curet MJ, Sanchez BR, Schuster R, Berguer R (2007) Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project. J Robot Surg 1(1):61–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Council NHaMR (2009) NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines

  96. Collins S, Tulikangas P (2010) Randomized trials in robotic surgery: a practical impossibility? Int Urogynecol J 21(9):1045–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Murphy D (2008) Robotic technology in surgery: current status in 2008. ANZ J Surg 78(5):1076–1081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Financial Disclaimers/Conflict of Interest

OE O’Sullivan: Dr O’Sullivan has no financial disclaimers or conflict of interest to disclose.

BA O’Reilly: Dr O’Reilly is a proctor for Intuitive, all financial reimbursement from the company are placed in the departments research fund

The Cork University Maternity Hospital is an Intuitive recognized epicentre for Robotic surgical training. All funds received form this are placed in the departments research fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urogynaecology, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland

    O. E. O’Sullivan & B. A. O’Reilly

Authors
  1. O. E. O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. A. O’Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. E. O’Sullivan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Sullivan, O.E., O’Reilly, B.A. Robot-assisted surgery:—impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J 23, 1163–1173 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1790-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1790-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation