You are here

Home » Content

REPRODÜKTİF TIPTA ROBOTİK CERRAHİYE GENEL BAKIŞ

OVERVIEW OF ROBOTIC SURGERY IN REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Usage of minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopy has rapidly increased in the gynecologic surgery. On the other hand, laparoscopic approach is still not suitable in all cases. Robotic surgery has several advantages over traditional laparoscopy, making itself an attractive choice in reproductive surgery. Recent studies show that robotic surgery may be more effective in carefully selected cases due to less postoperative pain, fewer days in hospital, faster return to daily activities and less blood loss during surgery. However, longer surgery period, the need for special training of the surgeon and the surgical team and high costs are the most important disadvantages of robotic surgery. Prospective studies that compare robotic surgery with laparoscopy and open surgery are already under way. Long-term outcomes of these studies will provide clinicians guidelines for indications for robotic surgery. The aim of this review is to discuss and present contemporary studies on robotic surgery specifically in the field of reproductive medicine.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Jinekolojik cerrahide minimal invazif cerrahi, özellikle de laparoskopi kullanımı gün geçtikçe artmaktadır. Ancak, bazı olgularda geleneksel laparoskopi yaklaşımı güç olabilir. Robotik cerrahi sisteminin geleneksel laparoskopiye göre birçok avantajı mevcuttur ve reprodüktif jinekolojik ameliyatlarda kendine birçok kullanım alanı bulmaktadır. Son yıllardaki araştırmalar, ameliyat sonrası ağrının daha az olması, hastanede daha az gün kalınması, günlük hayata daha çok çabuk geri dönüş ve ameliyat sırasında daha az kan kaybı sebebiyle robotik cerrahinin bazı olgularda tercih nedeni olmasının sebeplerini ortaya koymaktadır. Öte yandan, daha uzun ameliyat süresi, robotik sistemi kullanacak cerrahların ve ameliyat ekibinin özel eğitim gereksinimi ve yüksek maliyet bu sistemin halihazırdaki en önemli dezavantajlardır. Robotik cerrahi yaklaşımı, laparoskopi ve klasik açık ameliyatla karşılaştıran kapsamlı prospektif çalışmalar başlamıştır. Bu çalışmaların uzun süreli takip sonuçları, robotik cerrahinin hangi ameliyatlarda daha verimli ve avantajlı olduğunu net ortaya koymaya yardımcı olacaktır. Bu derlemede amaç, özellikle reprodüktif tıp dalında yayınlanmış robotik cerrahi hakkındaki güncel araştırmaları irdelemektir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon 3.pdf
  • 1
19-15
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Chen CC, Falcone T. Robotic gynecologic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2009;52:335-43.
2. Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States collaborative review of sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:889-95.
3. Sedbon E, Delajolinieres JB, Boudouris O, Madelenat P. Tubal desterilization through exclusive laparoscopy. Hum Reprod 1989;4(2):158-9.
4. Cha SH, Lee MH, Kim JH, Lee CN, Yoon TK, Cha KY. Fertility outcome after tubal anastomosis by laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2001;8:348-52.
Reprodüktif robotik cerrahi
İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt / Volume: 76 • Sayı / Number: 1 • Yıl/Year: 2013
14
5. Ribeiro SC, Tormena RA, Giribela CG, Izzo CR, Santos NC, Pinotti JA. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;84:142-6.
6. Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PT, Cadiere GB. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril 2000;74:1020-3.
7. Vlahos NF, Bankowski BJ, King JA, Shiller DA. Laparoscopic tubal reanastomosis using robotics: experience from a teaching institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2007;17(2):180-5.
8. Caillet M, Vandromme J, Rozenberg S, Paesmans M, Germay O, Degueldre M. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril 2010;94(5):1844-7.
9. Rodgers AK, Goldberg JM, Hammel JP, Falcone T. Tubal anastomosis by robotic compared with outpatient minilaparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109: 1375-80.
10. Dharia Patel SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic tubal anastomosis: surgical technique and cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril 2008;90:1175-9.
11. Cook H, Ezzati M, Segars JH, McCarthy K. The impact of uterine leiomyomas on reproductive outcomes. Minerva Ginecol 2010;62(3):225-36.
12. Duhan N, Sirohiwal D. Uterine myomas revisited. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;152:119-25.
13. Sunkara SK, Khairy M, El-Toukhy T, Khalaf Y, Coomarasamy A. The effect of intramural fibroids without uterine cavity involvement on the outcome of IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2010;25:418-29.
14. Falcone T, Bedaiwy MA. Minimally invasive management of uterine fibroids. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2002;14:401-7.
15. Prentice A, Taylor A, Sharma MA, Magos A. Laparoscopic versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004638.
16. Seracchioli R, Rossi S, Govoni F, Rossi E, Venturoli S, Bulletti C, et al. Fertility and obstetric outcome after laparoscopic myomectomy of large myomata: a randomized comparison with abdominal myomectomy. Hum Reprod 2000;15:2663-8.
17. Dubuisson JB, Fauconnier A, Fourchotte V, Babaki-Fard K, Coste J, Chapron C. Laparoscopic myomectomy: predicting the risk of conversion to an open procedure. Hum Reprod 2001 Aug;16:1726-31.
18. George A, Eisenstein D, Wegienka G. Analysis of the impact of body mass index on the surgical outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009;16:730-3.
19. Advincula AP, Song A, Burke W, Reynolds RK. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2004;11:511-8.
20. Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau 4th S, Ransom SB. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007;14:698-705.
21. Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, Kho RM. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:566.e1-5.
22. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Hsu S, Watson J, Barnett O, Lemyre M. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomyea retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril 2009;91:556-9.
23. Ascher-Walsh CJ, Capes TL. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010;17:306-10.
24. Barakat EE, Bedaiwy MA, Zimberg S, Nutter B, Nosseir M, Falcone T. Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of surgical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:256-65.
25. Lönnerfors C, Persson J. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy; a feasible technique for removal of unfavorably localized myomas. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:994-9.
26. Lönnerfors C, Persson J. Pregnancy following robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy in women with deep intramural myomas. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:972-7.
27. Crosignani PG, Vercellini P, Meschia M, Oldani S, Bramante T. GnRH agonists before surgery for uterine leiomyomas. A review. J Reprod Med 1996;41:415-21.
28. Liu C, Dusan P, Samadi D, Nezhat F. Robotic-assisted laparoscopyc partial bladder resection for the treatment of infiltrating endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15:745-8.
29. Chammas Jr MF, Kim FJ, Barbarino A, Hubert N, Feuillu B, Coissard A, et al. Asymptomatic rectal and bladder endometriosis: a case for robotic-assisted surgery. Can J Urol 2008;15:4097-100.
30. Nezhat C, Lewis M, Kotiketa S, Veeraswamy A, Saadat L, Hajhosseini B, et al. Robotic versus standard laparoscopy for the treatment of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 2010;94:2758-60.
31. Geisler JP, Orr CJ, Manahan KJ. Robotically assisted total laparoscopic radical trachelectomy for fertility sparing in stage 1B1 adenosarcoma of the cervix. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2008;18:727-819.
32. Persson J, Kannisto P, Bosmar T. Robot-assisted abdominal laparoscopic radical trachelectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2008;111:564-7.
33. Chuang LT, Lerner DL, Liu CS, Nezhat FR. Fertility-sparing robotic assisted radical trachelectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in early-stage cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15:767-70.
Reproductive robotic surgery
İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt / Volume: 76 • Sayı / Number: 1 • Yıl/Year: 2013
15
34. Burnett AF, Stone PJ, Duckworth LA, Roman JJ. Robotic radial trachelectomy for preservation of fertility in early cervical cancer: case series and description of technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009;16:569e72.
35. Ramirez PT, Schmeler KM, Malpica A, Soliman PT. Safety and feasibility of robotic radical trachelectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2010;116:512-5.
36. Donnez J, Silber S, Andersen CY, Demeestere I, Piver P, Meirow D, et al. Children born after autotransplantation of cryopreserved ovarian tissue. A review of 13 live births. Ann Med. 2011;43:437-50.
37. Akar ME, Carrillo AJ, Jennell JL, Yalcinkava TM. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic ovarian tissue transplantation. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1120.e5-8.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com