Single port robotic hysterectomy technique improving on multiport procedure

Lue, John R; Murray, Brian; Bush, Stephen H.

doi:10.4103/0972-9941.103130

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Probably it would contribute to decreasing the learning curve required to master these difficult procedures. [16][17][18] conclusion We observed that single port hysterectomies are feasible and safe in selected cases, with similar advantages to multiport laparoscopic hysterectomy. Cosmetic benefits may be an advantage of this approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy: preliminary results

Tormena

Ribeiro

Maciel

et al. 2015

Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: to describe the initial results of a laparoscopic single port access hysterectomy and also to evaluate the feasibility and safety of this access. Methods: a prospective study was performed at a tertiary university medical center (Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo) between March 2013 and June 2014. A total of 20 women, referred for hysterectomy due to benign uterine disease, were included in the study after they had signed an informed consent. Outcome measures, including operating time, blood loss, rate of complications, febrile morbidity, visual analogical pain score and length of hospital stay were registered. Results: mean patient age and body mass index (BMI) were 47.8 years and 27.15 kg/m 2 , respectively. Mean operating time was 165.5 min. Blood loss was minimal, with no blood transfusion. All procedures but one were successfully performed via a single incision and no post-operative complications occurred. We experienced one conversion to multiport laparoscopic hysterectomy due to extensive pelvic adhesions. There was no conversion to "open" total abdominal hysterectomy. None of the patients required narcotics or NSAD post-operatively. Conclusion: single-port hysterectomy is a feasible and safe technique, with no major complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy: preliminary results

Tormena

Ribeiro

Maciel

et al. 2015

Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But LESS robotic surgery has increased the number and size of ports required so the typical robotic surgical procedure should include three 8 mm ports and two 12 mm ports. 28 Triangulation is needed for proper dissection; at same time it provides effective traction and counter traction, it is difficult with SPL and becomes easy with robotic surgery. Instrument crowding is the most important problem in single-port surgery not present with using robot.…”

Section: Less Robotic Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic Gynecological Surgery: A Clinical Approach

Ali¹,

Abdelbadee²,

Shazly³

et al. 2013

WJOLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To provide a review in the available literature in robotic gynecological surgery, focusing on history of robotic surgery, basic setup, advantages and disadvantages of the robotic surgery, uses of surgical robots, the future of the robotic surgery and finally laparoendoscopic single site robotic surgery. Design: Literature survey. Conclusion: Although it is not evident that robotic surgery is superior to conventional laparoscopic surgery in surgical outcomes, many studies demonstrate the positive feasibility of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery in many gynecological fields including cancer. Robotic surgery is considered as a solution for the technical problems of minimal invasive surgery. However, the economic feasibility of robotic surgery still remains as an obstacle which should be overcomed. It is expected with further development of robotic technology that the concept of high cost will be resolved.

show abstract

“…The size of the port is about 4 cm and fits through a 2 cm incision. Once healed, the scar is virtually unnoticeable [31].…”

Section: Types Of Laparoscopic Hysterectomiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally Invasive Surgery: A New Approach for Uterine Cervical Cancer

Gavrilescu¹,

Todosi²,

Ioanid³

et al. 2015

Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn the early 1990s, the laparoscopic approach in uterine cervical cancer has started to become quite popular among oncologist surgeons in order to minimize postoperative morbidity. When a new surgical technique is taken into consideration or suggested, it is compared with the standard therapy hitherto. Important issues to be taken into account include the feasibility and applicability of the new technique, intraoperative and postoperative complications and in oncological cases, survival and risk of recurrence.Gold standard for uterine cervical cancer in the early stages was abdominal radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for more than 100 years. This technique, described for the first time Wertheim, Meigs subsequently underwent some changes. The first laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed and published in 1989 [1], but the first laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic and paraaortic lymphadenectomy in a patient with cervical cancer stage IA2 was performed by Nezha et al. in June 1989 and reported in 1992 [2]. Since then, it has been reported in the literature over 1000 cases [3]. Laparoscopic Surgery versus Open Surgery in Uterine Cervical CancerInitially used for diagnostic, laparoscopy has become a method of treatment in the field of gynecological surgery, but also in many other field. The results of laparoscopic surgery are now comparable with those obtained by laparotomy in benign and malignant pathologies. The most important advantages of the laparoscopic technique include more pleasing cosmetic appearance, or minimum parietal infectious complications, low incidence of adhesion formation, low cost associated with hospitalization and recovery period smaller resumption of daily activities in a shorter period [4]. In a study comparing the two surgical techniques, the results show an average of operating time with significant differences statistically 231.7 minutes for cases treated laparoscopically and 207 minutes to classical surgery, which can be explained by the fact that laparoscopic hysterectomies implemented quite recently requires a learning curve. The surgeons will become more familiar with laparoscopic procedure; the operative time is expected to become shorter. Intraoperative blood loss was lower in the laparoscopy (161.1 ml) compared with the traditional method (394.4 ml), with blood transfusions in 3 patients. Postoperative complications, represented mostly wound infections were recorded only in the group that received radical abdominal hysterectomy. The hospital stay was less in laparoscopic interventions (mean=2.9 days) compared with the second procedure (mean=5. A randomized, multicenter study including 116 patients demonstrated that laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy can be performed in a similar operating time classic surgery with intraoperative blood loss less and a relatively shorter period of hospitalization (p<0.01). Postoperative pain, another important parameter discussed, is lower for the first 3 days of laparoscopy versus open surgery (p<0.5) [7]....

show abstract

Single port robotic hysterectomy technique improving on multiport procedure

Cited by 9 publications

References 5 publications

Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy: preliminary results

Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy: preliminary results

Robotic Gynecological Surgery: A Clinical Approach

Minimally Invasive Surgery: A New Approach for Uterine Cervical Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About