Journal of Gynecologic Oncology

Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (대한부인종양학회)
권호 표지

Recent advances of robotic surgery and single port laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology

Jung, Yong-Wook;Kim, Sang-Wun;Kim, Young-Tae

  • Published : 20090000
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Two innovative approaches in minimally invasive surgery that have been introduced recently are the da Vinci robotic platform and single port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS). Robotic surgery has many advantages such as 3-dimensional view, the wrist like motion of the robotic arm and ergonomically comfortable position for the surgeon. Numerous literatures have demonstrated the feasibility of robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. However, further research should be performed to demonstrate the superiority of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopy. Additionally, cost reduction of robotic surgery is needed to adopt robotic surgery into gynecologic oncology worldwide. SPLS has several possible benefits including reduced operative complications, reduced postoperative pain, and better cosmetic results compared to conventional laparoscopy. Although several authors have indicated that SPLS is a feasible approach for gynecologic surgery, there have been few reports demonstrating the potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy. Moreover, technical difficulties of SPLS still exist. Therefore, the advantages of a single port approach compared to conventional laparoscope should be evaluated with comparative study, and further technologic development for SPLS is also needed. These two progressive technologies take the lead in the development of MIS and further studies should be performed to evaluate the benefits of robot surgery and SPLS.

Keywords

References

  1. Hulka JF. Current status of elective sterilization in the United States. Fertil Steril 1977; 28: 515-20 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)42549-5
  2. Wikipedia: The Free Encycolpedia [Internet]. San Francisco: Wikimedia Foundation. Karel Capek; [cited 2009 Aug 25]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_%C4%8Capek
  3. Satava RM. Robotic surgery: from past to future-a personal journey. Surg Clin North Am 2003; 83: 1491-500 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6109(03)00168-3
  4. Bann S, Khan M, Hernandez J, Munz Y, Moorthy K, Datta V, et al. Robotics in surgery. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 196: 784-95 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01750-7
  5. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Vix M, et al. Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 2001; 413: 379-80 https://doi.org/10.1038/35096636
  6. Romano JA, Lam DM, Moses GR, Gilbert GR, Marchessault R. The future of military medicine has not arrived yet, but we can see it from here. Telemed J E Health 2006; 12: 417-25
  7. Kim YT, Kim SW, Yoon BS, Nahm EJ, Hur HW, Kim SH, et al. Robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy: initial experience in Korea. Korean J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49: 2620-5
  8. Ministry for Heath Welfare and Family Affairs. Annual report of cancer incidence (2005) and survival (1993-2005) in Korea. Seoul: Ministry for Heath Welfare and Family Affairs; 2008
  9. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56: 106-30 https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.56.2.106
  10. Kim YT, Kim SW, Hyung WJ, Lee SJ, Nam EJ, Lee WJ. Robotic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for cervical carcinoma: a pilot study. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 108: 312-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.10.015
  11. Persson J, Reynisson P, Borgfeldt C, Kannisto P, Lindahl B, Bossmar T. Robot assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with short and long term morbidity data. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 113: 185-90 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.01.022
  12. Lowe MP, Chamberlain DH, Kamelle SA, Johnson PR, Tillmanns TD. A multi-institutional experience with robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 113: 191-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.01.018
  13. Estape R, Lambrou N, Diaz R, Estape E, Dunkin N, Rivera A. A case matched analysis of robotic radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 113: 357-61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.009
  14. Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 109: 86-91 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.011
  15. Fanning J, Fenton B, Purohit M. Robotic radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198: 649-4
  16. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, et al. A case-control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection compared with open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 357-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.10.044
  17. Magrina JF, Kho RM, Weaver AL, Montero RP, Magtibay PM. Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 109: 86-91 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.01.011
  18. Maggioni A, Minig L, Zanagnolo V, Peiretti M, Sanguineti F, Bocciolone L, et al. Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy: a case control study. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 115: 60-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.06.039
  19. Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S. Comparison of outcomes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 111: 407-11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.022
  20. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, et al. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 360-9
  21. DeNardis SA, Holloway RW, Bigsby GE, Pikaart DP, Ahmad S, Finkler NJ. Robotically assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 111: 412-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.025
  22. Lowe MP, Johnson PR, Kamelle SA, Kumar S, Chamberlain DH, Tillmanns TD. A multiinstitutional experience with robotic-assisted hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 236-43 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181af2a74
  23. Peiretti M, Zanagnolo V, Bocciolone L, Landoni F, Colombo N, Minig L, et al. Robotic surgery: changing the surgical approach for endometrial cancer in a eferral cancer center. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009; 16: 427-31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.013
  24. Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Henretta MS, Kim KH, Carlson MJ, Phillips GS, et al. Minimally invasive comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer: robotics or laparoscopy? Gynecol Oncol 2009; 113: 36-41 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.005
  25. Seamon LG, Cohn DE, Richardson DL, Valmadre S, Carlson MJ, Phillips GS, et al. Robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 1207-13 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818e4416
  26. Veljovich DS, Paley PJ, Drescher CW, Everett EN, Shah C, Peters WA. Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: program initiation and outcomes after the first year with comparison with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198: 679.e1-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.032
  27. Seamon LG, Bryant SA, Rheaume PS, Kimball KJ, Huh WK, Fowler JM, et al. Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 16-21 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181aa96c7
  28. Gehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A, Abaid LN, Mendivil A, Boggess JF. What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol 2008; 111: 41-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.06.030
  29. Childers JM, Brzechffa PR, Hatch KD, Surwit EA. Laparoscopically assisted surgical staging (LASS) of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1993; 51: 33-8 https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.1993.1242
  30. Cho YH, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Laparoscopic management of early uterine cancer: 10-year experience in Asan Medical Center. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 106: 585-90 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.05.011
  31. Malzoni M, Tinelli R, Cosentino F, Perone C, Rasile M, Iuzzolino D, et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy for early-stage endometrial cancer: a prospective randomized study. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112: 126-33 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.019
  32. Malzoni M, Tinelli R, Cosentino F, Fusco A, Malzoni C. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy in patients with early cervical cancer: our experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16: 1316-23 https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-009-0342-7
  33. Chen Y, Xu H, Li Y, Wang D, Li J, Yuan J, et al. The outcome of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer: a prospective analysis of 295 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2008; 15: 2847-55 https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-0063-3
  34. Mabrouk M, Frumovitz M, Greer M, Sharma S, Schmeler KM, Soliman PT, et al. Trends in laparoscopic and robotic surgery among gynecologic oncologists: a survey update. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112: 501-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.11.037
  35. Lee TS, Kim JW, Kim SH, Seong SJ, Song E, Kim J, et al. Surgical practice patterns in endometrial cancer: results of the Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group survey. J Gynecol Oncol 2009; 20: 107-12 https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2009.20.2.107
  36. Seamon LG, Fowler JM, Richardson DL, Carlson MJ, Valmadre S, Phillips GS, et al. A detailed analysis of the learning curve: robotic hysterectomy and pelvic-aortic lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 114: 162-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.04.017
  37. Mendivil A, Holloway RW, Boggess JF. Emergence of robotic assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: American perspective. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 114: S24-31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.02.002
  38. Chung SM, Jung YW, Lee SH, Nam EJ, Kim SW, Kim JH, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of hysterectomy via laparotomy, laparoscopy and robotic assisted laparoscopy [abstract]. J Gynecol Oncol 2009; 20(Suppl 1): 150S
  39. Tonouchi H, Ohmori Y, Kobayashi M, Kusunoki M. Trocar site hernia. Arch Surg 2004; 139: 1248-56 https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.139.11.1248
  40. Seamon LG, Backes F, Resnick K, Cohn DE. Robotic trocar site small bowel evisceration after gynecologic cancer surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 462-4 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181719ba8
  41. Wheeless CR. Outpatient tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1970; 36: 208-11
  42. Quinones GR, Alvarado DA, Ley Ch E. Tubal ligation using Yoon's ring. Ginecol Obstet Mex 1976; 40: 127-36
  43. Pelosi MA. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy using a single umbilical puncture. N J Med 1991; 88: 721-6
  44. Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Fasola M, Bolis P. One-trocar salpingectomy for the treatment of tubal pregnancy: a 'marionette-like' technique. BJOG 2005; 112: 1417-9 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00665.x
  45. Romanelli JR, Earle DB. Single-port laparoscopic surgery: an overview. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 1419-27 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0463-x
  46. Lim MC, Kim TJ, Kang S, Bae DS, Park SY, Seo SS. Embryonic natural orifice transumbilical endoscopic surgery (E-NOTES) for adnexal tumors. Surg Endosc Epub 2009 Apr 3. 417-25
  47. Lee Y, Kim T, Kim CJ, Kang H, Choi CH, Lee J, et al. Singleport access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a novel method with a wound retractor and a glove. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009; 16: 450-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2009.03.022
  48. Fader AN, Escobar PF. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) in gynecologic oncology: technique and initial report. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 114: 157-61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.020