Gallardo-Valencia LE, Gallardo-Fuentes JJ, Ruz-Barros RE

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 705-710
PDF size: 519.07 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Some 15 years ago since the Da Vinci system is launched in the market and since then has been gaining ground in the field of surgery. There have been published case series and large casuisticals comparing the benefits from robotic surgery versus laparoscopic. In 2005 the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approves its use for gynecological surgery. In Mexico, we have no experience in the use of this technology in this field of medicine. To describe the first laparoscopic hysterectomy case assisted with a robot (LHAR) intervened in Mexico, the results and review of the literature reported at the global level.
Clinical case: this is a 47 year-old patient with clinical and ultrasonographic diagnosis of uterine fibroids of large items, who is scheduled for laparoscopic hysterectomy assisted with robot at Hospital Angeles del Pedregal in May of 2014. It examines the parameters of surgical time, transoperative bleeding, surgical complications, postoperative pain and hospital stay. It is also a review of the literature and compared the results obtained with what is reported in the literature world. The surgery had a duration of 2 hours 35 minutes. Blood loss was less than 50 mL. There were no complications and the patient had an EVA test of 2 at 24 hours after surgery. Hospital stay was 2 days. Laparoscopic hysterectomy assisted with a robot is a reliable procedure according to what is reported at the global level, offering benefits to both the surgeon and the patient.

REFERENCES

1. Ballantyne GH. Robotic surgery Telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1389-1402.

2. Ballantyne GH, Moll F. The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: The virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg Clin Nort Am 2003;83:1293-1304.

3. Bodner J, Wykpiel H, Wetcher G, Schmid T. First experiences with the da Vinci operating robot in thoracic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:844-851.

4. Boehm DM, Gulbin H. Early experience with robotic technology for coronary artery surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;68:1542-1546.

5. Agency of Health Research and Quality. Three characteristics double the likelihood of hysterectomy for women with common non cancerous pelvic conditions. Disponible en: www.ahrq.gov/reseach/ sep07/0907RA13.htm. Acceso 18 de enero de 2010.

6. DeFrances CJ, Cullen KA, Kozak LJ. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2005 annual summary with detailed diagnosis and procedure data. Vital and Health Statistics Stat 13 2007;165:1-209.

7. Wu JM, Wechter ME, Geller EJ, Nguyen TV, Visco AV. Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1091-5.

8. Reynods RK, Advincula AP. Robot assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: technique and initial experience. Am J Surg 2006;191:555-60.

9. Advincula AP, Song A. The rol of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19:331-6.

10. Advincula AP, Wang K. Envolving rol and current state of robotic in minimally invasive gynecology surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009;16:291-301.

11. Merrill RM. Prevalence corrected hysterectomy rates and probabilities in Utah. Ann Epidemiol 2001;11:127-35.

12. Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr E, Garry R. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynecological disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006;2:CD003677.

13. Beste TM. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy utilizing a robotic surgery systems. JSLS 2005;9:13-5.

14. Payne TN. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15:286-91.

15. Nezhat C. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic in gynecological Surgery. JSLS 2006;10:317-20.

16. Scandola M. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy vs traditional laparoscopy hysterectomy: five metaanalyses. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18:705-15.