Cargando…
Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology—The Future Is Here
The authors present a systematic review of randomized and observational, retrospective and prospective studies to compare between robotic surgery as opposed to laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal surgery for the treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications. The comparison focuses...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Rambam Health Care Campus
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415365/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28467761 http://dx.doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10296 |
_version_ | 1783233510350258176 |
---|---|
author | Lauterbach, Roy Matanes, Emad Lowenstein, Lior |
author_facet | Lauterbach, Roy Matanes, Emad Lowenstein, Lior |
author_sort | Lauterbach, Roy |
collection | PubMed |
description | The authors present a systematic review of randomized and observational, retrospective and prospective studies to compare between robotic surgery as opposed to laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal surgery for the treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications. The comparison focuses on operative times, surgical outcomes, and surgical complications associated with the various surgical techniques. PubMed was the main search engine utilized in search of study data. The review included studies of various designs that included at least 25 women who had undergone robotic gynecologic surgery. Fifty-five studies (42 comparative and 13 non-comparative) met eligibility criteria. After careful analysis, we found that robotic surgery was consistently connected to shorter post-surgical hospitalization when compared to open surgery, a difference less significant when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Also, it seems that robotic surgery is highly feasible in gynecology. There are quite a few inconsistencies regarding operative times and estimated blood loss between the different approaches, though in the majority of studies estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic surgery group. The high variance in operative times resulted from the difference in surgeon’s experience. The decision whether robotic surgery should become mainstream in gynecological surgery or remain another surgical technique in the gynecological surgeon’s toolbox requires quite a few more randomized controlled clinical trials. In any case, in order to bring robotic surgery down to the front row of surgery, training surgeons is by far the most important goal for the next few years. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5415365 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Rambam Health Care Campus |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54153652017-05-10 Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology—The Future Is Here Lauterbach, Roy Matanes, Emad Lowenstein, Lior Rambam Maimonides Med J Special Issue on Gynecology, Fertility, and Obstetrics The authors present a systematic review of randomized and observational, retrospective and prospective studies to compare between robotic surgery as opposed to laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal surgery for the treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications. The comparison focuses on operative times, surgical outcomes, and surgical complications associated with the various surgical techniques. PubMed was the main search engine utilized in search of study data. The review included studies of various designs that included at least 25 women who had undergone robotic gynecologic surgery. Fifty-five studies (42 comparative and 13 non-comparative) met eligibility criteria. After careful analysis, we found that robotic surgery was consistently connected to shorter post-surgical hospitalization when compared to open surgery, a difference less significant when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Also, it seems that robotic surgery is highly feasible in gynecology. There are quite a few inconsistencies regarding operative times and estimated blood loss between the different approaches, though in the majority of studies estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic surgery group. The high variance in operative times resulted from the difference in surgeon’s experience. The decision whether robotic surgery should become mainstream in gynecological surgery or remain another surgical technique in the gynecological surgeon’s toolbox requires quite a few more randomized controlled clinical trials. In any case, in order to bring robotic surgery down to the front row of surgery, training surgeons is by far the most important goal for the next few years. Rambam Health Care Campus 2017-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5415365/ /pubmed/28467761 http://dx.doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10296 Text en © 2017 Lauterbach et al. This is an open-access article. All its content, except where otherwise noted, is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Special Issue on Gynecology, Fertility, and Obstetrics Lauterbach, Roy Matanes, Emad Lowenstein, Lior Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology—The Future Is Here |
title | Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology—The Future Is Here |
title_full | Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology—The Future Is Here |
title_fullStr | Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology—The Future Is Here |
title_full_unstemmed | Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology—The Future Is Here |
title_short | Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology—The Future Is Here |
title_sort | review of robotic surgery in gynecology—the future is here |
topic | Special Issue on Gynecology, Fertility, and Obstetrics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415365/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28467761 http://dx.doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10296 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lauterbachroy reviewofroboticsurgeryingynecologythefutureishere AT matanesemad reviewofroboticsurgeryingynecologythefutureishere AT lowensteinlior reviewofroboticsurgeryingynecologythefutureishere |