Literature DB >> 32410262

Robotic surgery for gynecologic cancers: indications, techniques and controversies.

Kiran H Clair1, Krishnansu S Tewari1.   

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic cancers is associated with fewer postoperative complications including less blood loss and quicker recovery time compared to traditional laparotomy. The robotic platform has allowed patients access to minimally invasive surgery due to its increased utilization by gynecologic oncologists. Many surgeons have embraced the robotic platform due to its technological advances over traditional laparoscopy including high-definition 3D optics, wristed instrumentation, camera stability and improved ergonomics. While robotic surgery continues as a mainstay in the management of gynecologic cancers, it remains controversial in regards to its cost effectiveness and more recently, its long-term impact on clinical and oncologic outcomes. A strong component of the justification of this surgical platform is based on extrapolated data from traditional laparoscopy despite limited prospective randomized trials for robotic-assisted surgery. In this review, we highlight the use of robotic surgery in the management of gynecologic cancers in special populations: fertility sparing patients, the morbidly obese, the elderly, and patients with a favorable response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
© 2020 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  gynecologic cancer; minimally invasive surgery; robotic surgery; sentinel lymph node

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32410262      PMCID: PMC7387116          DOI: 10.1111/jog.14228

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res        ISSN: 1341-8076            Impact factor:   1.730


  62 in total

1.  Minimally invasive and robotic surgery.

Authors:  M J Mack
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-02-07       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery.

Authors:  J Marescaux; J Leroy; M Gagner; F Rubino; D Mutter; M Vix; S E Butner; M K Smith
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-09-27       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

Authors:  Sean Kehoe; Jane Hook; Matthew Nankivell; Gordon C Jayson; Henry Kitchener; Tito Lopes; David Luesley; Timothy Perren; Selina Bannoo; Monica Mascarenhas; Stephen Dobbs; Sharadah Essapen; Jeremy Twigg; Jonathan Herod; Glenn McCluggage; Mahesh Parmar; Ann-Marie Swart
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Recurrence Rates in Patients With Cervical Cancer Treated With Abdominal Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Review Study.

Authors:  Shitanshu Uppal; Paola A Gehrig; Katherine Peng; Kristin L Bixel; Koji Matsuo; Monica H Vetter; Brittany A Davidson; M Paige Cisa; Brittany F Lees; Laurie L Brunette; Katherine Tucker; Allison Stuart Staley; Walter H Gotlieb; Robert W Holloway; Kathleen G Essel; Laura L Holman; Ester Goldfeld; Alexander Olawaiye; Stephen L Rose
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Comparison of a sentinel lymph node and a selective lymphadenectomy algorithm in patients with endometrioid endometrial carcinoma and limited myometrial invasion.

Authors:  Ane Gerda Zahl Eriksson; Jen Ducie; Narisha Ali; Michaela E McGree; Amy L Weaver; Giorgio Bogani; William A Cliby; Sean C Dowdy; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Andrea Mariani; Mario M Leitao
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 6.  Laparoscopic surgery for gynaecological cancers in obese women.

Authors:  Igor E Martinek; Krishnayan Haldar; Roberto Tozzi
Journal:  Maturitas       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  A multi-institutional experience with robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  M Patrick Lowe; Donald H Chamberlain; Scott A Kamelle; Peter R Johnson; Todd D Tillmanns
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2009-02-26       Impact factor: 5.482

8.  Oncologic outcome of fertility-sparing radical trachelectomy versus radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical carcinoma.

Authors:  John P Diaz; Yukio Sonoda; Mario M Leitao; Oliver Zivanovic; Carol L Brown; Dennis S Chi; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2008-08-27       Impact factor: 5.482

9.  Survival after Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Alexander Melamed; Daniel J Margul; Ling Chen; Nancy L Keating; Marcela G Del Carmen; Junhua Yang; Brandon-Luke L Seagle; Amy Alexander; Emma L Barber; Laurel W Rice; Jason D Wright; Masha Kocherginsky; Shohreh Shahabi; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Longke Ran; Jing Jin; Yan Xu; Youquan Bu; Fangzhou Song
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

1.  Ergonomic Assessment of the Surgeon's Physical Workload During Robot-Assisted Versus Standard Laparoscopy in a French Multicenter Randomized Trial (ROBOGYN-1004 Trial).

Authors:  Judicaël Hotton; Emilie Bogart; Marie-Cécile Le Deley; Eric Lambaudie; Fabrice Narducci; Frédéric Marchal
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 4.339

Review 2.  Building a Personalized Medicine Infrastructure for Gynecological Oncology Patients in a High-Volume Hospital.

Authors:  Nicolò Bizzarri; Camilla Nero; Francesca Sillano; Francesca Ciccarone; Marika D'Oria; Alfredo Cesario; Simona Maria Fragomeni; Antonia Carla Testa; Francesco Fanfani; Gabriella Ferrandina; Domenica Lorusso; Anna Fagotti; Giovanni Scambia
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2021-12-21
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.