Coutiño BA, Santoyo HS, Lara BIA

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 235-238
PDF size: 135.00 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The field of robotic surgery has developed rapidly and its use for gynecological pathology has grown exponentially. Its benefits are well documented which include a better quality of life. The present study describes the experience in a private hospital in Mexico City. Material and methods: From May 2014 to March 2021, 250 patients with different gynecological diseases underwent robotic surgery, the surgeries were performed for ten qualified surgeons. Surgical results were recorded in a database. Results: 250 patients underwent robotic surgery, 100% female, mean age: 43 years. A total of 250 simple procedures. The two most frequent surgeries were hysterectomy (63.2%) and myomectomy (30.8%). The average operating time was 182 min. 2.8% rate of complication. Conclusions: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a reality in Mexico, the experience is limited but produced encouraging results, we find this practice safe and feasible, with acceptable surgical time, low conversion rates, and low morbidity. This study is rewarding for its impact on our health care system but a major revision is important to improve our practice.

REFERENCES

1. Agency of health research and quality. Women's Health. Three clinical characteristics double the likelihood of hysterectomy for women with common noncancerous pelvic conditions. AHRQ. 2007. Available in: www.ahrq.gov/reseach/sep07/0907RA13.htm

2. Yates DR, Roupret M, Bitker MO, Vaessen C. To infinity and beyond: the robotic toy story. Eur Urol. 2011; 60 (2): 263-265.

3. Miller Fogel HS. Cirugía robótica en México. Los sistemas inteligentes, perspectivas actuales y a futuro en el ámbito mundial. Rev Mex Cir Endoscop. 2003; 4 (1): 45-50.

4. Carbajal Ramos A. Estado del arte en cirugía robótica. Rev Mex Cir Endoscop. 2001; 2 (2): 109-112.

5. American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologist. Committee opinion no. 628: robotic surgery in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125 (3): 760-767.

6. Lucena Olavarrieta JR, Coronel P, Orellana Pérez S. Historia, evolución, estado actual y futuro de la cirugía robótica. Rev Fac Med. 2007; 30 (2): 109-114.

7. Iranmanesh P, Morel P, Wagner OJ, Inan I, Pugin F, Hagen ME. Set-up and docking of the da Vinci surgical system: prospective analysis of initial experience. Int J Med Robot. 2010; 6 (1): 57-60.

8. Rojas TI, Larraín de la CD, Marengo F, González LF, Prado J, Buckel GH. Uso rutinario del montaje lateral (side-docking) en cirugía robótica ginecológica: estudio de factibilidad. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol. 2012; 77 (6): 428-433.

9. Lonnerfors C, Reynisson P, Persson J. A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22 (1): 78-86.

10. Sait KH. Early experience with the da Vinci surgical system robot in gynecological surgery at King Abdulaziz University Hospital. Int J Womens Health. 2011; 3: 219-226.

11. Velemir L, Azuar AS, Botchorishvili R, Canis M, Jardon K, Rabischong B, Pouly JL et al. Optimisation du role des aides opératoires lors d'une hystérectomie laparoscopique. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2009; 37 (1): 74-80.

12. Gocmen A, Sanlikan F, Ucar MG. Turkey's experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: a series of 25 consecutive cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010; 282 (2): 163-171.

13. Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008; 15 (5): 589-594.