Author(s)

Harold K. Ward

Affiliation(s)

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Corresponding Author

Harold K. Ward

ABSTRACT

Robot-assisted surgery is a technological breakthrough in the field of minimally invasive surgery. It promotes the use of minimally invasive technology in complex gynecological surgeries. It is currently mainly used in gynecological diseases for three common malignant tumors in gynecology (endometrial cancer, Cervical cancer, ovarian cancer) and some complex benign gynecological diseases. This article reviews the relevant literature on the application of robot-assisted surgery to gynecological diseases, analyzes the current clinical evidence of robot-assisted surgery applied to gynecological diseases, and provides a realistic and reliable basis for clinical selection of robot-assisted gynecological surgery.

KEYWORDS

Robotic surgery; Gynecological diseases; Minimally invasive technology

CITE THIS PAPER

Harold K. Ward. Current status and prospects of robotic technology in treating gynecological diseases. World Journal of Information Technology. 2024, 2(1): 5-8. DOI: 10.61784/wjit240178.

REFERENCES

[1] NEZHAT C, NEZHAT F, NEZHAT C. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2009, 16 (5): 661-662.

[2] BOUWMAN F, SMITS A, LOPES A. The impact of BMI on surgical complications and outcomes in endometrial cancer surgery—an institutional study and systematic review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol, 2015, 139 (2): 369-376.

[3] SEAMON LG, COHN DE, HENRETTA MS. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: Robotics or laparoscopy. Gynecol Oncol, 2009, 113(1): 36-41.

[4] GAIA G, HOLLOWAY RW, SANTORO L. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 116(6): 1422-1431.

[5] PARK HK, HELENOWSKI IB, BERRY E. A comparison of survival and recurrence outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer undergoing robotic versus open surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2015, 22(6): 961-967.

[6] PUNTAMBEKAR S P, PALEP R J, PUNTAMBEKAR S S. Laparoscopic total radical hysterectomy by the pune technique: our experience of 248 cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2007, 14(6): 682-689.

[7] PETERS B S, ARMIJOP R, KRAUSE C. Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surg Endosc, 2018, 32: 1636-1655.

[8] YIM GW, KIM SW, NAM EJ. Perioperative complications of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery using three robotic arms at a single institution. Yonsei MedJ, 2015, 56(2): 474-481.

[9] LAVOUE V, GOTLIEB W. Benefits of minimal access surgery in elderly patients with pelvic cancer. Cancers, 2016, 8(1): 12-12.

[10] CHEN L, LIU LP, WEN N. Comparative analysis of roboticvslaparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. World J Clin Cases, 2019, 7(20): 3185-3193.

[11] KIM TH, CHOI CH, CHOI JK. Robotic versus laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients: a matched-casecomparativestudy. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2014, 24(8): 1466-1473.

[12] SHAZLY SA, MURAD MH, DOWDY SC. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol, 2015, 138(2): 457-471.

[13] RAMIREZ PT, SCHMELER KM, SOLIMAN PT. Fertility preservation in patients with early cervical cancer: radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol, 2008, 110(3 Suppl 2): S25-S28.

[14] JOHANSEN G, LONNERFORS C, FALCONER H. Reproductive and oncologic outcome following robot-assisted laparoscopicradical trachelectomy for early stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2016, 141 (1): 160-165.

[15] VIEIRA MA, RENDON GJ, MUNSELL M. Radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: a comparison oflaparotomy and minimallyinvasivesurgery.Gynecol Oncol, 2015, 138(3): 585-589.

[16] MAGRINA JF, ZANAGNOLO V, NOBLE BN. Robotic approach for ovarian cancer: perioperative and survival results and comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol, 2011, 121(1): 100-105.

[17] LEE CY, CHEN IH, TORNG PL. Robotic myomectomy for large uterine myomas. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol, 2018, 57(6): 796-800.

[18] NEZHAT C, LAVIE O, HSU S. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy—a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril, 2009, 91(2): 556-559.

[19] BERLANDA N, FRATTARUOLO M P, AIMI G. The role of robotic assisted laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Reprod Biomed Online, 2017, 35 (4): 435-444.

[20] ARAUJO SE, SEID VE, MARQUES RM. Advantages of the robotic approach to deep infiltrating rectal endometriosis: because less is more. J Robot Surg, 2016, 10(2): 165-169.

[21] CORNILLIE FJ, OOSTERLYNCK D, LAUWERYNS JM. Deeply infiltrating pelvic endometriosis: histology and clinical significance. Fertil Steril, 1990, 53(6): 978-983.

[22] AURIANE D N, GUY-BERNARD C, PIERRE B. Fluorescence of deep infiltrating endometriosis during laparoscopic surgery: a preliminary report on 6 cases. Surgical Innovation, 2018, 25(5): 450-454.

[23] RESTAINO S, MEREU L, FINELLI A. Robotic surgery vs laparoscopic surgery in patients with diagnosis of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg, 2020, 14(5): 687-694.

[24] CHEN S H, DU X P. Silent spontaneous posterior uterine rupture of a prior caesarean delivery at 36 weeks of gestation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2019, 19(1): 23.