CLINICAL EFFICACY OF THE ROBOT-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC MYOMECTOMY (A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE)

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Rationale: One of the most complicated and unresolved problems in clinical medicine is the choice of an optimal method for organ-preservation treatment of uterine fibroids in women of childbearing age. Aim: To assess clinical efficacy of robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. Materials and methods: The search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Trip, Cochrane, DocMe databases by keywords: “fibroids”, “robot”, “da Vinci”, “robotic myomectomy”, “robot-assisted myomectomy”. Results: We found 25 publications on robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy, including 6  papers on its reproductive outcomes (levels of evidence II–IV). Duration of robot-assisted surgery ranged from 132 to 261 minutes, intraoperative blood loss was in the range from 50 to 387 mL, postoperative hospital stay ranged from 1 to  3.9  days. There was a  lower percentage of intra- and postoperative complications after the robot-assisted interventions, compared to abdominal or classic laparoscopic access, as well as a lower percentage of conversion laparotomies compared to laparoscopy. Pregnancy rates after robotic myomectomy ranged from 16.7 to 69%. Only one case of uterine rupture after robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy has been described in the literature. Conclusion: Due to high cost of the method, the number of conducted studies is insufficient to evaluate the role of robotic technologies in the organ-preservation approach to uterine fibroids. Nevertheless, they suggest that robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is justified in women of childbearing age who are planning pregnancy, with big centripetally growing intramural nodes and deformation of the uterine cavity. This technique on its own is an independent method for fertility restoration and could be the first step before the use of assisted reproductive technology.

About the authors

V. A. Gudebskaya

N.I. Pirogov National Medical Surgical Center; 70 Nizhnyaya Pervomayskaya ul., Moscow, 105203, Russian Federation

Author for correspondence.
Email: victoriagudebskaya@yahoo.fr
Postgraduate Student, Chair of Women's Disorders and Reproductive Health, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Training Russian Federation

References

  1. Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau S 4th, Ransom SB. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14(6):698–705.
  2. Advincula AP, Song A. The role of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(4):331–6.
  3. Amodeo A, Linares Quevedo A, Joseph JV, Belgrano E, Patel HR. Robotic laparoscopic surgery: cost and training. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2009;61(2):121–8.
  4. Ascher-Walsh CJ, Capes TL. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(3):306–10. doi: 10.1016/j. jmig.2010.01.011.
  5. Asmar J, Even M, Carbonnel M, Goetgheluck J, Revaux A, Ayoubi JM. Myomectomy by Robotically Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: Results at Foch Hospital, Paris. Front Surg. 2015;2:40. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00040.
  6. Barakat EE, Bedaiwy MA, Zimberg S, Nutter B, Nosseir M, Falcone T. Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):256–65. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0b013e318207854f.
  7. Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, Kho RM. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(6):566. e1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.05.049.
  8. Cela V, Freschi L, Simi G, Tana R, Russo N, Artini PG, Pluchino N. Fertility and endocrine outcome after robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RALM). Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(1):79–82. doi: 10.3109/09513590.2012.705393.
  9. Chen CC, Falcone T. Robotic gynecologic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;52(3):335–43. doi: 10.1097/ GRF.0b013e3181b08adf.
  10. Gargiulo AR, Srouji SS, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Vellinga TT, Einarsson JI. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(2 Pt 1):284–91. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0b013e3182602c7d.
  11. Gobern JM, Rosemeyer CJ, Barter JF, Steren AJ. Comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy in a community hospital. JSLS. 2013;17(1):116–20. doi: 10.4293/1086 80812X13517013317473.
  12. Göçmen A, Şanlıkan F, Uçar MG. Comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy outcomes with laparoscopic myomectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(1):91–6. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2530-0.
  13. Griffin L, Feinglass J, Garrett A, Henson A, Cohen L, Chaudhari A, Lin A. Postoperative outcomes after robotic versus abdominal myomectomy. JSLS. 2013;17(3):407–13. doi: 10.42 93/108680813X13693422521557.
  14. Hsiao SM, Lin HH, Peng FS, Jen PJ, Hsiao CF, Tu FC. Comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy and traditional laparoscopic myomectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013;39(5):1024–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1447- 0756.2012.02073.x.
  15. Lönnerfors C, Persson J. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy; a feasible technique for removal of unfavorably localized myomas. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(9):994–9. doi: 10.1080/00016340903118026.
  16. Lönnerfors C, Persson J. Pregnancy following robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy in women with deep intramural myomas. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(9):972–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01207.x.
  17. Mansour FW, Kives S, Urbach DR, Lefebvre G. Robotically assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: a Canadian experience. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34(4):353–8.
  18. Nash K, Feinglass J, Zei C, Lu G, Mengesha B, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Lin A. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(2):435–40. doi: 10.1007/s00404-011- 1999-2.
  19. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Hsu S, Watson J, Barnett O, Lemyre M. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy – a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(2):556–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.092.
  20. Pitter MC, Gargiulo AR, Bonaventura LM, Lehman JS, Srouji SS. Pregnancy outcomes following robot-assisted myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(1):99–108. doi: 10.1093/humrep/ des365.
  21. Ranisavljevic N, Mercier G, Masia F, Mares P, De Tayrac R, Triopon G. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: comparison with abdominal myomectomy. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2012;41(5):439–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2012.05.010.
  22. Sangha R, Eisenstein D, George A, Munkarah A, Wegienka G. Surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared to abdominal myomectomy. J Robot Surg. 2010;4(4):229–33.
  23. Senapati S, Advincula AP. Surgical techniques: robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy with the da Vinci® surgical system. J Robot Surg. 2007;1(1):69–74.
  24. Markuly SN, Miller CE, Szela K. Uterine rupture after robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. Case Report. CRLS MIS Case Reports from SLS.org. e2014.00208. Available from: http:// crsls.sls.org/uterine-rupture-after-robotic-assisted-laparoscopic-myomectomy/
  25. Visco AG, Advincula AP. Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1369–84. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818f3c17.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2016 Gudebskaya V.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies