Literature DB >> 24295923

Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy.

Rajiv B Gala1, Rebecca Margulies2, Adam Steinberg3, Miles Murphy4, James Lukban5, Peter Jeppson6, Sarit Aschkenazi7, Cedric Olivera8, Mary South9, Lior Lowenstein10, Joseph Schaffer10, Ethan M Balk11, Vivian Sung6.   

Abstract

The Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group performed a systematic review of both randomized and observational studies to compare robotic vs nonrobotic surgical approaches (laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal) for treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications to compare surgical and patient-centered outcomes, costs, and adverse events associated with the various surgical approaches. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to May 15, 2012, for English-language studies with terms related to robotic surgery and gynecology. Studies of any design that included at least 30 women who had undergone robotic-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic surgery were included for review. The literature yielded 1213 citations, of which 97 full-text articles were reviewed. Forty-four studies (30 comparative and 14 noncomparative) met eligibility criteria. Study data were extracted into structured electronic forms and reconciled by a second, independent reviewer. Our analysis revealed that, compared with open surgery, robotic surgery consistently confers shorter hospital stay. The proficiency plateau seems to be lower for robotic surgery than for conventional laparoscopy. Of the various gynecologic applications, there seems to be evidence that renders robotic techniques advantageous over traditional open surgery for management of endometrial cancer. However, insofar as superiority, conflicting data are obtained when comparing robotics vs laparoscopic techniques. Therefore, the specific method of minimally invasive surgery, whether conventional laparoscopy or robotic surgery, should be tailored to patient selection, surgeon ability, and equipment availability.
Copyright © 2014 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gynecologic surgery; Learning curve; Robotic surgery; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24295923     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  32 in total

Review 1.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Authors:  Benjamin B Albright; Tilman Witte; Alena N Tofte; Jeremy Chou; Jonathan D Black; Vrunda B Desai; Elisabeth A Erekson
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 4.137

2.  Make New Friends But Keep the Old: Minimally Invasive Surgery Training in Gynecologic Oncology Fellowship Programs.

Authors:  Kari L Ring; Pedro T Ramirez; Lesley B Conrad; William Burke; R Wendel Naumann; Mark F Munsell; Michael Frumovitz
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.437

3.  Recent publications by ochsner authors: october 2013 - march 2014.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

4.  Robotic transperitoneal ilioinguinal pelvic lymphadenectomy for high-risk melanoma: an update of 18-month follow-up.

Authors:  Antonio Pellegrino; Gianluca Raffaello Damiani; Davide Strippoli; Fabrizio Fantini
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2014-03-22

5.  Diffusion of robotic-assisted laparoscopic technology across specialties: a national study from 2008 to 2013.

Authors:  Yen-Yi Juo; Aditya Mantha; Ahmad Abiri; Anne Lin; Erik Dutson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Clinical comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open hysterectomy procedures for endometrial cancer patients.

Authors:  Lynette Johnson; W Douglas Bunn; Loan Nguyen; Jessica Rice; Minakshi Raj; Mary J Cunningham
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-11-03

7.  Minimally Invasive Techniques for Treating Gynecologic Malignancies.

Authors:  Amanda N Fader
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 11.908

8.  Herniation formation in women undergoing robotically assisted laparoscopy or laparotomy for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Maria B Schiavone; Maciej S Bielen; Ginger J Gardner; Oliver Zivanovic; Elizabeth L Jewell; Yukio Sonoda; Richard R Barakat; Dennis S Chi; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 9.  Robot-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial and cervical cancers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Immaculate F Nevis; Bahareh Vali; Caroline Higgins; Irfan Dhalla; David Urbach; Marcus Q Bernardini
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-07-16

10.  Outcomes of Robotic Hysterectomy for Treatment of Benign Conditions: Influence of Patient Complexity.

Authors:  Lisa J Herrinton; Tina Raine-Bennett; Liyan Liu; Stacey E Alexeeff; Wilfredo Ramos; Betty Suh-Burgmann
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2019-12-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.