Ginecología y Obstetricia de México

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board

>Journals >Ginecología y Obstetricia de México >Year 2012, Issue 06

Ayala YR, Olaya GEJ, Haghenbeck AFJ
Robotics in Gynecology. Background, Feasibility and Applicability
Ginecol Obstet Mex 2012; 80 (06)

Language: Español
References: 32
Page: 409-416
PDF: 265.47 Kb.

Full text


Background: Robotic surgery is a technology that emerged from the fusion and improvement of laparoscopy, robotics and telepresence. All these three technologies underwent a long experimentation process in which several applications and innovations were tested until the only system approved for use in humans was developed: the Da Vinci system by Intuitive Surgical Inc. Gynecology, being one of the pioneer branches of Medicine involved in the development of laparoscopy, is one of the fields with the greatest possibilities for robotics, which offers great diversity of applications in hysterectomies, myomectomies, endometriosis, and in the fields of urogynecology and, most importantly, oncology. There are no publications in Mexico with a proper description of the clinical experience with gynecologic robotic surgery, though a great amount of clinical experience has been accumulated in institutions that already have such equipment. A serious evaluation of the cost-benefit ratio is required because of the high cost of this technology.
Objective: Evaluate and analyze the accumulated experience on this technology of foreign institutions in order to assess the benefits, cost and effectiveness of robotic surgery.
Conclusion: The key to the optimal use of robotic technology is to diminish costs and speed the learning curve, and this implies the entry of other systems into the market as well as institutions with a high volume of patients and determined to invest in a highly trained and skilled surgical team. In order to recommend its implementation in our country an assessment of the efficiency and advantages of robotic technology considering institutional needs is mandatory.

Key words: robotics, gynecology, laparoscopy, cost-benefit analysis.


  1. Zunt, Dominik.”Who did actually invent the word “robot” and what does it mean?”. The Karel Čapek website.

  2. http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/robotics/home/what_is_robotics_k4.html

  3. Satava. RM Virtual reality and telepresence for military medicine. Comput Biol Med 1995;25:229-236.

  4. Sheridan TB. Telerobotics, Automation and Human Supervisory Control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.

  5. Wang Y, Sackier J. Robotically Enhanced Surgery: From concept to development. Surg Endosc 1994;8:63-66.

  6. Visco AG, Advincula AP. Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:1369-1684.

  7. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/womensrh/hysterectomy.htm

  8. Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R, van Voorst S, Mol BW, Kluivers KB. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;8:CD003677.

  9. Payne TN, Dauterive FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008,15:286-291.

  10. Guía de Práctica Clínica, Diagnóstico y tratamiento de miomatosis uterina; catálogo maestro de guías de práctica clínica. IMSS-082-08, www.cenetec.salud.gob.mx/interior/gpc.html.

  11. Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, Kho RM. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J of Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:566.e1-5.

  12. Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau S 4th, Ransom SB. Robotassisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J of Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007;14:698-705.

  13. Quass AM, Einarsson JI, Srouji S, Gargiulo AR. Robotic myomectomy: a review of indications and techniques. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2010;3:185-191.

  14. Caillet M, Vandromme J, Rozanberg S, Paesmans M, Germay O, Degueldre M. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1844-1847.

  15. Nezhat C, Lewis M, Kotikela S, Veeraswamy A, Saadat L, Hajhosseini B, Nezhat C. Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 2010;94:2758-2760.

  16. Advincula AP, Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J of Min Invasive Gynecol 2009;16:291-301.

  17. Fried LP. Epidemiology of aging. Epidemiol Rev 2000;22:95-106.

  18. Schimpf MO, Morgenstern JH, Tulikangas PK, Wagner JR. Vesicovaginal repair without intentional cystotomy using the laparoscopic robotic approach: a case report. JSLS 2007;11:378-380.

  19. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:1201-1206.

  20. Muffly TM, Diwadkar GB, Paraiso MR. Lumbosacral osteomielitis after robot – assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 2010;21:1569 – 1571.

  21. Patel M, O`Sullivan D, Tulikangas K. A comparison of cost for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot – assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 2009;20:223 – 228.

  22. Reynolds RK, Burke WM, Advincula AP. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic staging of gynecologic malignancies. JLSL 2005;9:149-158.

  23. Peiretti M, Zanagnolo V, Bocciolone L, Landoni F, Colombo N, Minig L, Sanguineti F, Maggioni A. Robotic surgery: changing the surgical approach for endometrial cancer in a referral cancer center. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009;16:427-31.

  24. Ramirez PT, Adams S, Boggess JF, Burke WM, Frumovitz MM, Gardner GJ, Havrilesky LJ, Holloway R, Lowe MP, Magrina JF, Moore DH, Soliman PT, Yap S. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: a society of gynecologic oncology consensus statement developed by the society of gynecologic oncology clinical practice robotics task force. Gynecol Oncol 2012;124:180-4.

  25. Nick AM, Frumovitz MM, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM, Ramirez PT. Fertility sparing surgery for treatment of early-stage cervical cancer: Open vs robotic radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2012:124:276-280.

  26. Gaia G, Holloway RW, Santoro L, Ahmad S, Di Silverio E, Spinillo A. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1422-1431.

  27. Kornblith AB, Huang HQ, Walker JL, Spirtos NM, Rotmensch J, Cella D. Quality of life of patients with endometrial cancer undergoing laparoscopic laparotomy international federation of gynecology and obstetrics staging compared with laparotomy: a gynecologic oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 2009:27:5337-5342.

  28. Cho JE, Nezhat FE. Robotics and gynecologic oncology: review of the literature. J Minim Inv Gynecol 2009;16:669-6681.

  29. Dueñas García OF, Rico Olvera H, Beltrán Montoya JJ. Telemedicina y cirugía robótica en ginecología. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2008;76:161-166.

  30. Schreuder HWR, Verheijen RHM. Robotic surgery BJOG 2009;116:198-213.

  31. Prewitt R, Bochkarev V, McBride CL, Kinny S, Oleynikov D. The patterns and costs of the “Da Vinci” robotic surgery system in a large academic institution. J Robotic Surg 2008;2:17-20.

  32. Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C. Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:730-738.

>Journals >Ginecología y Obstetricia de México >Year 2012, Issue 06

· Journal Index 
· Links 

Copyright 2019