Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gynecological Procedures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pediatric Robotic Surgery

  • 711 Accesses

Abstract

With the advent of robotic surgery, and the system’s extremely useful approach to narrow cavities such as the pelvis, outcomes in the gynecologic approach have improved. Reports in robotic gynecology are encouraging and the da Vinci System has become applicable even in pediatric gynecological surgery. Robotic applications in pediatrics have been reported in adnexal surgery and benign ovarian tumor resection. Proper patient positioning on the operating table is essential to allow optimal surgical field of view. In children, in nonemergency conditions, robotic surgery may be considered not only an “enabling technology” but also a “facilitating technology.” As a facilitating technology the robotic approach in pediatric and adolescent surgery ameliorates the operative learning curve allowing greater diffusion of the laparoscopic procedure, which has already been proven beneficial for patients. Robotic surgery has the edge over conventional open surgery when considering the smaller incisions, reduced blood loss and pain, shorter hospital stays, and quicker convalescence. In addition, the gynecologic robotic approach contributes to fertility preservation in case of benign pediatric ovarian tumors. Robotic gynecologic surgery is becoming a clinical reality and is gaining increased acceptance even in the pediatric field.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Law KS, Abbott JA, Lyons SD. Energy sources for gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: a review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2014;69:763–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bhagavath B, Benjamin A. Minimally invasive gynecologic surgery for benign conditions: progress and challenges. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015;70:656–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rabinovich A. Minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27:302–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Arimoto T, Kawana K, Adachi K, et al. Minimization of curative surgery for treatment of early cervical cancer: a review. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45:611–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Palomba S, Fornaciari E, Falbo A, et al. Safety and efficacy of the minilaparotomy for myomectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30:462–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Carbonnel M, Revaux A, Frydman R, et al. Single-port approach to benign gynecologic pathology. A review. Minerva Ginecol. 2015;67:239–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sisodia RM, Del Carmen MG, Boruta DM. Role of minimally invasive surgery in the management of adnexal masses. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;58:66–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bush SH, Apte SM. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecological oncology. Cancer Control. 2015;22:307–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. van den Haak L, Alleblas C, Nieboer TE, et al. Efficacy and safety of uterine manipulators in laparoscopic surgery: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292:1003–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shazly SA, Murad MH, Dowdy SC, et al. Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:457–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mäenpää M, Nieminen K, Tomás E, et al. Implementing robotic surgery to gynecologic oncology: the first 300 operations performed at a tertiary hospital. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94:482–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zanotti KM, Abdelbadee AY. Robotic management of endometriosis: where do we stand? Minerva Ginecol. 2015;67:257–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu H, Lu D, Shi G, et al. WITHDRAWN: robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;12:CD008978.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Liu H, Lawrie TA, Lu D, et al. Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;12:CD011422.

    Google Scholar 

  15. White WM, Pickens RB, Elder RF, et al. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41:549–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Paraiso MF. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for hysterectomy and pelvic organ prolapse repair. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:933–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sinno AK, Fader AN. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:922–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ng AT, Tam PC. Current status of robot-assisted surgery. Hong Kong Med J. 2014;20:241–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smorgick N, As-Sanie S. The benefits and challenges of robotic-assisted hysterectomy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;26:290–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tarr ME, Paraiso MF. Minimally invasive approach to pelvic organ prolapse: a review. Minerva Ginecol. 2014;66:49–67.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ayala-Yáñez R, Olaya-Guzmán EJ, Haghenbeck-Altamirano J. Robotics in gynecology: why is this technology worth pursuing? Clin Med Insights Reprod Health. 2013;7:71–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Gala RB, Margulies R, Steinberg A, et al. Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:353–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fanfani F, Restaino S, Ercoli A, et al. Robotic or laparoscopic gynecology. What should we use? Minerva Ginecol. 2016;68(4):423–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nakib G, Calcaterra V, Scorletti F, et al. Robotic assisted surgery in pediatric gynecology: promising innovation in mini invasive surgical procedures. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2013;26:e5–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nezhat C, Lakhi N. Learning experiences in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;35:20–9. pii: S1521-6934(15)00221–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Catchpole K, Perkins C, Bresee C, et al. Safety, efficiency and learning curves in robotic surgery: a human factors analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(9):3749–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. El Hachem L, Momeni M, Friedman K, et al. Safety, feasibility and learning curve of robotic single-site surgery in gynecology. Int J Med Robot. 2016;12(3):509–16. doi:10.1002/rcs.1675.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sheth SS, Fader AN, Tergas AI, et al. Virtual reality robotic surgical simulation: an analysis of gynecology trainees. J Surg Educ. 2014;71:125–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sinha CK, Haddad M. Robot-assisted surgery in children: current status. J Robot Surg. 2008;1:243–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Long CJ, Ginsberg JP, Kolon TF. Fertility preservation in children and adolescents with cancer. Urology. 2016;91:190–6. pii: S0090–4295(15)01176–0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Estes SJ. Fertility preservation in children and adolescents. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am. 2015;44:799–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lipskind ST, Gargiulo AR. Computer-assisted laparoscopy in fertility preservation and reproductive surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:435–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pathiraja P, Tozzi R. Advances in gynaecological oncology surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27:415–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gargiulo AR. Fertility preservation and the role of robotics. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54:431–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ulm MA, Fleming ND, Rallapali V, et al. Position-related injury is uncommon in robotic gynecologic surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135:534–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Chang C, Steinberg Z, Shah A, et al. Patient positioning and port placement for robot-assisted surgery. J Endourol. 2014;28:631–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Barnett JC, Hurd WW, Rogers RM Jr, et al. Laparoscopic positioning and nerve injuries. J Minim Invasive Surg. 2007;14:664–72.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jackson HT, Kane TD. Advances in minimally invasive surgery in pediatric patients. Adv Pediatr Infect Dis. 2014;61:149–95.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Blatnik JA, Ponsky TA. Advances in minimally invasive surgery in pediatrics. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2010;12:211–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tomaszewski JJ, Casella DP, Turner RM II, et al. Pediatric laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: technical considerations. J Endourol. 2012;26:602–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pelizzo G, Nakib G, Romano P, et al. Five millimetre-instruments in paediatric roboticsurgery: advantages and shortcomings. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2015;24:148–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Anderson KM, Ruckle HC, Baldwin DD. Robotic-assisted surgery and the evolution of the radical prostatectomy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2012;64:97–122.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bianco FJ. Robotic radical prostatectomy: present and future. Arch Esp Urol. 2011;64:839–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Smith AL, Krivak TC, Scott EM, et al. Dual-console robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery with respect to surgical outcomes in a gynecologic oncology fellowship program. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126:432–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wedmid A, Llukani E, Lee DI. Future perspectives in robotic surgery. BJU Int. 2011;108:1028–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pediatric Surgery Unit, Children’s Hospital, Istituto Mediterraneo di Eccellenza Pediatrica, Palermo, Italy

    Gloria Pelizzo

Authors
  1. Gloria Pelizzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gloria Pelizzo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Pediatric Surgery, DINOGMI, Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genova, Italy

    Girolamo Mattioli

  2. Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genova, Italy

    Paolo Petralia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pelizzo, G. (2017). Gynecological Procedures. In: Mattioli, G., Petralia, P. (eds) Pediatric Robotic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41863-6_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41863-6_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41862-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41863-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation