ACOG
Close Search
Menu
Home Search

Robot-Assisted Surgery for Noncancerous Gynecologic Conditions

  • Committee Opinion CO
  • Number 810
  • September 2020

Number 810 (Replaces Committee Opinion Number 628, March 2015. Reaffirmed 2023)

ACOG Committee on Gynecologic Practice

Society of Gynecologic Surgeons

This Committee Opinion was developed jointly by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice and the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS) in collaboration with ACOG committee member Mireille D. Truong, MD, and SGS member Rajiv B. Gala, MD.

ABSTRACT: For noncancerous conditions, such as hysterectomy, a minimally invasive approach to gynecologic surgery has well-documented advantages—including faster return to normal activities, decreased length of stay, and better quality of life—compared with an abdominal approach. Although the quality of data for robot-assisted surgery is still low to moderate, the use of robot-assisted surgery has rapidly increased since its approval, which highlights the need to develop effective and thoughtful strategies for its implementation. Reporting of adverse events currently is voluntary and nonstandardized; therefore, the true rate of complications is not known. Adoption of new surgical techniques should be driven by what is best for the patient and by evidence-based medicine, rather than external pressures. Although training in robot-assisted surgery increasingly is incorporated into obstetric and gynecologic residency programs, exposure to and training with robotic devices varies nationally. Obstetrician–gynecologists not previously trained in robot-assisted surgery can acquire the necessary skills through independent robot-assisted training programs and through courses offered and accredited by organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and the American Urogynecologic Society. Ongoing quality assurance is essential to ensure appropriate use of the technology and, most importantly, patient safety. Well-designed studies are needed to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from robot-assisted surgery over other minimally invasive approaches.

Recommendations and Conclusions

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS) make the following recommendations and conclusions:

  • Studies suggest that robot-assisted gynecologic surgery can be performed safely in centers with experienced surgeons and has perioperative outcomes equivalent to laparoscopy and improved outcomes compared with laparotomy.

  • Robot-assisted cases should be selected based on the likelihood of improved outcomes compared with other surgical approaches due to the complexity of the case or patient factors, with appropriate consideration to costs.

  • Robot-assisted surgery provides an alternative surgical tool for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. Further comparative studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes and patient safety, and to identify specific subgroups of patients who would benefit from a robot-assisted approach.

  • As with any procedure, informed consent should be obtained from patients before surgery with discussion of the surgeon’s experience with robot-assisted surgery, indications for surgery, and potential risks and benefits associated with the robot-assisted technique compared with alternative surgical approaches and other therapeutic options.

  • Both ACOG and SGS recommend the development of a registry of robot-assisted gynecologic procedures and the use of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database (MAUDE) to report adverse events.

This Committee Opinion is updated to reflect an expansion of the literature regarding the role of robot-assisted surgery in patients with endometriosis. The document has been revised to exclude gynecologic malignancies.

Background

For noncancerous conditions, such as hysterectomy, a minimally invasive approach to gynecologic surgery has well-documented advantages—including faster return to normal activities, decreased length of stay, and better quality of life—compared with an abdominal approach. The field of robot-assisted surgery has developed rapidly and its use for gynecologic conditions has grown exponentially since its 2005 approval by the FDA for gynecologic procedures 1 2. Although vaginal surgery is the approach of choice whenever feasible for hysterectomy, the addition of robot-assisted surgery provides an alternative surgical tool for minimally invasive gynecologic surgery 3. Reported advantages of using a robotic device are improved visualization, dexterity, elimination of tremor, and improved ergonomics. Small pilot studies have suggested that surgeons may experience less neck, shoulder, and back discomfort with robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopy 4. Perceived limitations related to robot-assisted procedures include lack of haptic feedback, nonstandardized training requirements, and difficulties measuring value due to variability in cost reporting based on usage-based purchasing contracts, surgeon preferences, and site-specific factors. Although the quality of data for robot-assisted surgery is still low to moderate, the use of robot-assisted surgery has rapidly increased since its approval, which highlights the need to develop effective and thoughtful strategies for its implementation 5. Hospitals and physicians actively advertise and promote robot-assisted surgery programs, often with claims of improved outcomes and patient safety that are not based on evidence 6 7 8. Adoption of new surgical techniques should be driven by what is best for the patient and by evidence-based medicine, rather than external pressures 9. Reporting of adverse events currently is voluntary and nonstandardized; therefore, the true rate of complications is not known. Both ACOG and SGS recommend the development of a registry of robot-assisted gynecologic procedures and the use of the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database (MAUDE) to report adverse events; https://www.fda.gov/industry/fda-esubmitter/electronic-medical-device-reporting-emdr.

The purpose of this Committee Opinion is to provide background information on robot-assisted surgery for noncancerous gynecologic conditions, review the literature on this topic, and offer practice recommendations. This Committee Opinion will include a summary of the results and conclusions of studies on robotic techniques on specific surgical interventions (hysterectomy, myomectomy, surgery for endometriosis, and sacrocolpopexy). Robot-assisted surgery for gynecologic oncology will not be addressed. For information on robot-assisted surgery for cancerous conditions, see the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s consensus statement on robot-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology 10.

The Robot-Assisted Approach for Gynecologic Surgery

Although low-quality or low-certainty evidence suggests little difference in complication rates between robot-assisted surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery for benign conditions, high-quality data are not available on patient outcomes, safety, or cost 11. Nevertheless, rapid adoption of robot-assisted technology for gynecologic surgery in noncancerous conditions continues. A wide array of literature exists, but most studies are retrospective, observational, and noncomparative. There are very few data that compare robotic laparoscopic surgery to vaginal surgery, and that topic is beyond the scope of this document. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared robot-assisted surgery for noncancerous gynecologic disease with laparoscopy and none demonstrated superiority of the robot-assisted approach 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. These studies suggest that robot-assisted gynecologic surgery can be performed safely in centers with experienced surgeons and has perioperative outcomes equivalent to laparoscopy and improved outcomes compared with laparotomy. Therefore, a minimally invasive approach may be considered for procedures that might otherwise require laparotomy.

Surgical Procedures

Overall, the data on robot-assisted approaches for surgical procedures for noncancerous conditions (eg, hysterectomy, myomectomy, management of endometriosis) are of low quality or certainty, or both. When available, the data for robot-assisted surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery and robot-assisted surgery versus abdominal surgery are discussed below.

Hysterectomy

Although the use of robot-assisted approaches to hysterectomy has increased, data on operative time and perioperative outcomes are of low certainty. Additionally, assessments of the costs of robotic surgery are complex and dependent on factors such as usage and surgeon experience.

Robot-Assisted Surgery Versus Abdominal Surgery

Single-institution studies that compared robot-assisted hysterectomy with abdominal and laparoscopic approaches reported no mean difference in operative time 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. Studies that compared a robot-assisted approach with laparotomy reported less blood loss, lower complication rates, and shorter hospital stays with the robot-assisted hysterectomies 21 22. A 2016 multicenter retrospective study that included 2,300 robot-assisted hysterectomies, 9,745 abdominal hysterectomies, 8,121 vaginal hysterectomies, and 11,952 laparoscopic hysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons demonstrated that the robot-assisted cohort had higher rates of adhesive disease, morbid obesity, and larger uteri, but fewer intraoperative complications compared with laparotomy and vaginal approaches, as well as shorter hospital stays and fewer postoperative complications compared with abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic approaches 27. As noted in the study, interpretation of clinical outcomes is affected by the surgical volume. One limitation of these results is the definition of “high-volume” surgeons in the comparison group by their cumulative robotic experience (greater than 60 procedures in a 5-year period) as opposed to their annual surgical volume. The seven surgeons who performed the 2,300 robot-assisted procedures performed more than 80 robot-assisted hysterectomies per year during the study period 27.

Robot-Assisted Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery

To date, there are four RCTs that compared robot-assisted hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy 12 15 17 19. In three RCTs, no differences were found in perioperative outcomes, including blood loss, length of stay, type or number of complications, postoperative pain levels, analgesic use, or recovery time 15 17 19. Data on operative times were mixed. A 2012 study and 2013 study found significantly longer operative times for robot-assisted hysterectomy than laparoscopy (29 minutes and 77 minutes mean difference, respectively) 15 17. Longer operative times in the robot-assisted group compared with the laparoscopy group potentially may be due to surgeons being early in their learning curve and to specimen weights being larger in the robot-assisted group 28. Conversely, a 2015 study and a 2016 study reported similar operative times when comparing robot-assisted hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy 12 19.

The overall incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence after any hysterectomy is reported to be 0.14–4.1%. Based on low-quality data, and only a few studies, the incidence of vaginal cuff dehiscence for robot-assisted hysterectomy is reported to be 0.4–2.61% 29 30 31. A retrospective study that compared robot-assisted hysterectomy with laparoscopic hysterectomy showed no difference in vaginal cuff dehiscence rate 30. However, a 2018 randomized trial reported a significant reduction in vaginal dehiscence and cuff complications with intracorporeal vaginal closure 32. Improvements in visual technology and surgical technique may partially explain the earlier conclusions of elevated cuff complication rates when compared with transvaginal closure 33 34.

Myomectomy

In well-trained hands, all routes of myomectomy—open, laparoscopic, and robotic—are safe. However, the laparoscopic approach to myomectomy is challenging. The robot-assisted system may help overcome variables that limit the use of laparoscopic myomectomy, such as unfavorable myoma location 35. Also, robot-assisted myomectomy is safe in women with a wide range of body mass indices 36. Despite the purported benefits of robot-assisted technologies, evidence of its superiority is based on observational studies of varying quality and power with heterogeneous patient populations.

A 2016 systematic review attempted to summarize the available evidence regarding robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomies as compared with open or laparoscopic approaches 37. Although robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomies had longer operative times compared with abdominal approaches, blood loss, rates of transfusion, and length of hospital stays were substantially reduced 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45. When compared with laparoscopic approaches, the robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy did not offer any advantage for operating time, blood loss, or length of hospital stay 37; however, a 4.5 times increased risk of conversion to an open approach was observed when laparoscopic myomectomy was used compared with robot-assisted cases 37. Data on long-term outcomes such as pain control, postoperative fertility, and myoma recurrences are needed.

Surgical Management of Endometriosis

Robot-assisted surgery has emerged as an additional surgical tool for the management of endometriosis. Retrospective and descriptive studies have reported feasibility of robot-assisted surgery for deep infiltrating endometriosis 46 47 48 49. A comparative study showed better detection of endometriosis lesions with the robot-assisted camera compared with the laparoscopic camera 50. Near-infrared technology is available on both laparoscopic and robotic platforms. However, this technology is built into the robotic system and readily available, and it has been reported to potentially help identify atypical endometriosis lesions 51 52. This near-infrared technology can identify vascular islands surrounded by fibro-vascular tissue by detecting an injected tracer dye of indocyanine green in the blood stream. This dye binds to plasma proteins and becomes confined to the vascular system 53. This near-infrared technology may provide another tool for detection of endometriosis, but more data are needed to confirm its use for this procedure.

Robot-Assisted Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery

In the few retrospective studies that compared robot-assisted surgery for endometriosis with laparoscopy, there was no difference in overall complication rates or estimated blood loss 54 55. Data regarding operative time are conflicting. Some studies reported longer operative time 54 for robot-assisted surgery and others reported similar operative times between robot-assisted and laparoscopic groups 55. A clinical trial that investigated laparoscopy versus robot-assisted surgery for endometriosis demonstrated no difference between robot-assisted approaches and laparoscopic approaches in outcomes, including operative time, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and rates of conversion. Both groups produced similar improvement in quality of life at 6 weeks and 6 months 13.

Sacrocolpopexy

Traditionally, sacrocolpopexy has been performed with an abdominal or laparoscopic approach. However, adoption of the laparoscopic approach has been limited by a steep learning curve.

Robot-Assisted Surgery Versus Abdominal Surgery

To date, there are two studies that compared robot-assisted surgery with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Both studies found decreased lengths of stay for robot-assisted surgery compared with open techniques. A retrospective review of abdominal open or robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy operations over a 4-year period observed an overall 10% cost savings for robot versus open sacrocolpopexy, largely due to decreased costs per hospitalization day in the postoperative period 56. A review of robot-assisted vaginal vault suspension and open vaginal vault suspension observed lower postoperative wound, genitourinary, and vascular complications with the robotic approach compared with the open approach 57.

Robot-Assisted Surgery Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery

In 2016, researchers systematically reviewed nine papers of variable quality that compared robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy involving 1,157 patients. Seven of the studies were nonrandomized and there were only two RCTs. There were no significant differences between the different approaches in anatomic outcomes at the 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month intervals and no significant differences in recurrence rates at 1 year. In addition, there were no differences in mortality, length of hospital stay, and postoperative quality of life. In the two RCTs that compared robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, operating time, postoperative pain, and cost were found to be significantly greater in the robot-assisted group 16 18, but anatomical and functional outcomes 6 months to 1 year after surgery were similar. Ultimately, the surgical approach should take into account individual patient characteristics and surgical expertise of the physician.

Other Gynecologic Procedures

Patients scheduled for gynecologic procedures of short duration and low complexity are unlikely to benefit from robot-assisted surgery. Due to a lack of advantages and potential disadvantages, both ACOG and SGS recommend against (in most routine cases) the use of a robotic approach for the following procedures (if not performed as part of another surgical procedure):

  • Tubal ligation

  • Simple ovarian cystectomy

  • Surgical management of tubal ectopic pregnancy

  • Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy

  • Bilateral salpingectomy

  • Diagnostic laparoscopy or other surgeries when diagnosis is unknown

Special Patient Population Considerations

Further comparative studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes and patient safety, and to identify specific subgroups of patients who would benefit from a robot-assisted approach. Obesity is a well-documented risk factor for major and minor surgical complications regardless of route. However, data have demonstrated similar risks of complications with laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery in this population 58. The incremental effect of robotic surgery on surgical adverse events is not clearly defined. Although low-quality data suggest that a robot-assisted surgical approach in gynecologic surgery has similar or decreased rates of surgical complications as compared with laparoscopy for patients with obesity and morbid obesity 59 60 61 62, these data are in higher risk patients with cancer. Further research in patients with noncancerous pathology is needed to verify extrapolation of these observations.

Learning Curve

Based on limited data, the combination of improved visualization and instrument control allow for a faster surgical learning curve on a robot-assisted device compared with conventional laparoscopy, which involves two-dimensional imaging and counterintuitive hand movements 1. Robot-assisted techniques may permit some procedures that previously would have required laparotomy to be performed using a minimally invasive approach. Data show that improvements in surgical technique with robot-assisted devices are seen continuously throughout the first 100 surgeries; efficiency in surgical times appeared to be attained after 20–30 cases 63.

Several studies have demonstrated the value of laparoscopic simulation in improving surgical skill and operating performance 64 65. Although simulation has not yet become a mandatory training component for robotic surgical devices, some standardized curricula have been developed, including the Fundamentals of Robotic Surgery 66 67 68 and the Robotic Training Network robotictraining.org.

Credentialing, Privileging, Certification, and Training

Credentialing and privileging are conducted at the local level by health care institutions, whereas boards (eg, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology) provide certification after completion of resident training. Medical specialty organizations, other educational institutions, and the health care industry do not have the authority to certify, credential, or privilege, but may provide training for physicians and document their completion of training.

Currently, there are no standardized credentialing and privileging guidelines; guidelines vary across institutions and hospitals. Some medical specialty organizations, such as the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL), have developed guidelines for robot-assisted credentialing and privileging 69. A 2017 study described the experience of developing best practices for robot-assisted surgery over 7 years and provides guidelines for credentialing and privileging that can be applied to various surgical specialties, including gynecology 70. These guidelines may be used as templates and modified for each individual institution. See Box 1 for considerations that institutions may want to consider when developing credentialing and privileging guidelines for robot-assisted surgery.

Box 1.

Considerations for Institutions Developing Credentialing and Privileging Guidelines for Robot-Assisted Surgery

Establish pathways for surgeons’ varied experiences and training

  • Current surgeons already credentialed at outside institution transferring from another institution

  • Residency- or fellowship-trained surgeons

  • Current surgeons who are new to robot-assisted surgery

Determine prerequisites for credentialing and privileging eligibility

  • Verification of training in gynecologic surgery

  • Verification of robot-assisted training (eg, formal training, clinical experience)

Determine general requirements for credentialing and privileging

  • Competency assessment (eg, minimum case volume, simulation hours, video assessment, robotic surgery certification)

  • Proctoring requirements (number of cases needed based on experience level versus standardized number)

Delineate requirements for types/levels of procedures (eg, simple vs complex procedures)

Determine objective requirements to support maintenance of privileges (eg, using assessment or metrics for competency and proficiency, minimum case volume, required continuing medical education, measurement of outcomes and complications, simulation hours, video or proctored review of surgical cases)

Certification is required in order to use the robotic device; however, this does not confer proficiency. Training of the surgical team is essential and has been reported to decrease operative time and complication rates 71 72. Although laparoscopic skills are used in the operation of robotic devices, they are not a surrogate for robotic training.

Although training in robot-assisted surgery increasingly is incorporated into obstetric and gynecologic residency programs, exposure to and training with robotic devices varies nationally. Individual programs may offer, and specific residents potentially may receive, training compatible with that outlined previously for the practicing physician, but this varies from institution to institution and certification is not yet standardized.

Obstetrician–gynecologists not previously trained in robot-assisted surgery can acquire the necessary skills through independent robot-assisted training programs and through courses offered and accredited by organizations such as ACOG, SGS, AAGL, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and the American Urogynecologic Society. Health care institutions often require surgeons’ initial robot use to be proctored by a surgeon experienced with this technology. Determination of competency for credentialing should be done at the local level Box 1.

Both ACOG and SGS recommend that general robot-assisted training requirements for gynecologic surgery for obstetrician–gynecologists who have completed an accredited residency training and who are using robot-assisted surgery in their practices include the following components:

  • The obstetrician–gynecologist must have completed a didactic educational program focused on robot-assisted surgery, such as approved online training modules. These programs may have been a part of residency or fellowship training and may be offered and accredited by organizations such as ACOG, SGS, AAGL, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and the American Urogynecologic Society.

  • Individuals should have hands-on training using the new technology, including docking, bedside assisting, and sitting at the console. This experience may include inanimate, animate, cadaver laboratory setting, and virtual reality simulation 73. Standardized and validated assessment tools such as Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (or GEARS) https://www.csats.com/gears and Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (or OSATS) may be used for evaluation in both simulation and intraoperative settings 74 75 76.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted surgical devices are tools for a minimally invasive approach. Appropriate training on robotic devices is necessary to ensure patient safety and appropriate use of technology. Robot-assisted cases should be selected based on the likelihood of improved outcomes compared with other surgical approaches due to the complexity of the case or patient factors, with appropriate consideration to costs. As with any procedure, informed consent should be obtained from patients before surgery with discussion of the surgeon’s experience with robot-assisted surgery, indications for surgery, and potential risks and benefits associated with the robot-assisted technique compared with alternative surgical approaches and other therapeutic options. Ongoing quality assurance is essential to ensure appropriate use of the technology and, most importantly, patient safety. Well-designed studies are needed to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from robot-assisted surgery over other minimally invasive approaches.

References

  1. Advincula AP, Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009; 16: 291– 301.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  2. Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BW, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD003677. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  3. Choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Committee Opinion No. 701. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 129: e155– 9.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  4. Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K. Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22: 234– 8.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  5. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 2013; 309: 689– 98.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  6. Wright JD, Tergas AI, Hou JY, Burke WM, Chen L, Hu JC, et al. Effect of regional hospital competition and hospital financial status on the use of robotic-assisted surgery. JAMA Surg 2016; 151: 612– 20.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  7. Kolata G. Results unproven, robotic surgery wins converts. New York Times . February 14, 2010: A1. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/health/14robot.html. Retrieved March 23, 2020.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  8. Jin LX, Ibrahim AM, Newman NA, Makarov DV, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA. Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites. J Healthc Qual 2011; 33: 48– 52.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  9. Assessing and adopting new medical devices for obstetric and gynecologic care. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 801. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135: e160– 6.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  10. Ramirez PT, Adams S, Boggess JF, Burke WM, Frumovitz MM, Gardner GJ, et al. Robotic-assisted surgery in gynecologic oncology: a Society of Gynecologic Oncology consensus statement. Developed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology's Clinical Practice Robotics Task Force. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 124: 180- 4.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  11. Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu D, Dowswell T, Song H, Wang L, et al. Robot‐assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD011422. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  12. Deimling TA, Eldridge JL, Riley KA, Kunselman AR, Harkins GJ. Randomized controlled trial comparing operative times between standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2017; 136: 64– 9.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  13. Soto E, Luu TH, Liu X, Magrina JF, Wasson MN, Einarsson JI, et al. Laparoscopy vs. Robotic Surgery for Endometriosis (LAROSE): a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 996– 1002.e3.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  14. Wijk L, Nilsson K, Ljungqvist O. Metabolic and inflammatory responses and subsequent recovery in robotic versus abdominal hysterectomy: a randomised controlled study. Clin Nutr 2018; 37: 99– 106.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  15. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schar G. Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 604– 11.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  16. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118: 1005– 13.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  17. Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Park AJ, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Falcone T, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and robotically assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208: 368.e1– 7.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  18. Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial [published erratum appears in Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:165]. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 5– 12.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  19. Lonnerfors C, Reynisson P, Persson J. A randomized trial comparing vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy vs robot-assisted hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22: 78– 86.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  20. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010; 150: 92– 6.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  21. Matthews CA, Reid N, Ramakrishnan V, Hull K, Cohen S. Evaluation of the introduction of robotic technology on route of hysterectomy and complications in the first year of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: 499.e1– 5.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  22. Landeen LB, Bell MC, Hubert HB, Bennis LY, Knutsen-Larson SS, Seshadri-Kreaden U. Clinical and cost comparisons for hysterectomy via abdominal, standard laparoscopic, vaginal and robot-assisted approaches. S D Med 2011; 64: 197– 9, 201, 203 passim.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  23. Payne TN, Dauterive FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008; 15: 286– 91.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  24. Kilic GS, Moore G, Elbatanony A, Radecki C, Phelps JY, Borahay MA. Comparison of perioperative outcomes of total laparoscopic and robotically assisted hysterectomy for benign pathology during introduction of a robotic program. Obstet Gynecol Int 2011; 2011: 683703.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  25. Shashoua AR, Gill D, Locher SR. Robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS 2009; 13: 364– 9.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  26. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Gemer O, Bhagan L, Nezhat C. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with and without a robot: Stanford experience. JSLS 2009; 13: 125– 8.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  27. Lim PC, Crane JT, English EJ, Farnam RW, Garza DM, Winter ML, et al. Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons for benign indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016; 133: 359– 64.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  28. Swenson CW, Kamdar NS, Harris JA, Uppal S, Campbell DAJr, Morgan DM. Comparison of robotic and other minimally invasive routes of hysterectomy for benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215: 650.e1– 8.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  29. Kashani S, Gallo T, Sargent A, Elsahwi K, Silasi DA, Azodi M. Vaginal cuff dehiscence in robotic-assisted total hysterectomy. JSLS 2012; 16: 530– 6.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  30. Dauterive E, Morris G IV. Incidence and characteristics of vaginal cuff dehiscence in robotic-assisted and traditional total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Robot Surg 2012; 6: 149– 54.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  31. Uccella S, Casarin J, Marconi N, Gisone B, Sturla D, Podesta Alluvion C, et al. Incidence and prevention of vaginal cuff dehiscence following laparoscopic and robotic hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22: S40.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  32. Uccella S, Malzoni M, Cromi A, Seracchioli R, Ciravolo G, Fanfani F, et al. Laparoscopic vs transvaginal cuff closure after total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized trial by the Italian Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218: 500.e1– 13.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  33. Nezhat C, Kennedy Burns M, Wood M, Nezhat C, Nezhat A, Nezhat F. Vaginal cuff dehiscence and evisceration: a review. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132: 972– 85.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  34. Uccella S, Ceccaroni M, Cromi A, Malzoni M, Berretta R, De Iaco P, et al. Vaginal cuff dehiscence in a series of 12,398 hysterectomies: effect of different types of colpotomy and vaginal closure. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 516– 23.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  35. Lonnerfors C, Persson J. Pregnancy following robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy in women with deep intramural myomas. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011; 90: 972– 7.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  36. 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.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  37. Iavazzo C, Mamais I, Gkegkes ID. Robotic assisted vs laparoscopic and/or open myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical evidence. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016; 294: 5– 17.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle LocationArticle LocationArticle Location
  38. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Hsu S, Watson J, Barnett O, Lemyre M. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy--a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 556– 9.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  39. Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, Kho RM. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201: 566.e1– 5.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  40. Gargiulo AR, Srouji SS, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Vellinga TT, Einarsson JI. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy [published errata appear in Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1214; Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:698]. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 284– 91.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  41. 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.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  42. Hsiao SM, Lin HH, Peng FS, Jen PJ, Hsiao CF, Tu FC. Comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy and traditional laparoscopic myomectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2013; 39: 1024– 9.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  43. Nash K, Feinglass J, Zei C, Lu G, Mengesha B, Lewicky-Gaupp C, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 285: 435– 40.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  44. Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau S IV, 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.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  45. 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.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  46. Nezhat C, Hajhosseini B, King LP. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic treatment of bowel, bladder, and ureteral endometriosis. JSLS 2011; 15: 387– 92.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  47. Siesto G, Ieda N, Rosati R, Vitobello D. Robotic surgery for deep endometriosis: a paradigm shift. Int J Med Robot 2014; 10: 140– 6.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  48. Abo C, Roman H, Bridoux V, Huet E, Tuech JJ, Resch B, et al. Management of deep infiltrating endometriosis by laparoscopic route with robotic assistance: 3-year experience. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2017; 46: 9– 18.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  49. Ercoli A, Bassi E, Ferrari S, Surico D, Fagotti A, Fanfani F, et al. Robotic-assisted conservative excision of retrocervical-rectal deep infiltrating endometriosis: a case series. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24: 863– 8.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  50. Mosbrucker C, Somani A, Dulemba J. Visualization of endometriosis: comparative study of 3-dimensional robotic and 2-dimensional laparoscopic endoscopes. J Robot Surg 2018; 12: 59– 66.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  51. Lier MC, Vlek SL, Ankersmit M, van de Ven PM, Dekker JJ, Bleeker MC, et al. Comparison of enhanced laparoscopic imaging techniques in endometriosis surgery: a diagnostic accuracy study. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 96– 104.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  52. Jayakumaran J, Pavlovic Z, Fuhrich D, Wiercinski K, Buffington C, Caceres A. Robotic single-site endometriosis resection using near-infrared fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green: a prospective case series and review of literature. J Robot Surg 2020; 14: 145– 54.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  53. Lue JR, Pyrzak A, Allen J. Improving accuracy of intraoperative diagnosis of endometriosis: role of firefly in minimal access robotic surgery. J Minim Access Surg 2016; 12: 186– 9.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  54. Nezhat CR, Stevens A, Balassiano E, Soliemannjad R. Robotic-assisted laparoscopy vs conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22: 40– 4.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  55. Dulemba JF, Pelzel C, Hubert HB. Retrospective analysis of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopy in the treatment of pelvic pain indicative of endometriosis. J Robot Surg 2013; 7: 163– 9.
    Article Locations:
    Article LocationArticle Location
  56. Elliott CS, Hsieh MH, Sokol ER, Comiter CV, Payne CK, Chen B. Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis. J Urol 2012; 187: 638– 43.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  57. Li H, Sammon J, Roghmann F, Sood A, Ehlert M, Sun M, et al. Utilization and perioperative outcomes of robotic vaginal vault suspension compared to abdominal or vaginal approaches for pelvic organ prolapse. Can Urol Assoc J 2014; 8: 100– 6.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  58. Gambacorti-Passerini ZM, López-De la Manzanara Cano C, Pérez Parra C, Cespedes Casas MC, Sánchez Hipólito L, Martín Francisco C, et al. Obesity in patients with endometrial cancer: may it affect the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic approach? Obes Surg 2019; 29: 3285– 90.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  59. Gehrig PA, Cantrell LA, Shafer A, Abaid LN, Mendivil A, Boggess JF. What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol 2008; 111: 41– 5.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  60. Raventós-Tato RM, de la Torre-Fernández de Vega J, Sánchez-Iglesias JL, Díaz-Feijoó B, Sabadell J, Pérez-Benavente MA, et al. Surgical approaches in women with endometrial cancer with a body mass index greater than 35 kg/m 2. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2019; 45: 195– 202.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  61. Scheib SA, Tanner EIII, Green IC, Fader AN. Laparoscopy in the morbidly obese: physiologic considerations and surgical techniques to optimize success. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21: 182– 95.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  62. Kissane LM, Calixte R, Grigorescu B, Finamore P, Vintzileos A. Impact of obesity on robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24: 36– 40.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  63. Lin JF, Frey M, Huang JQ. Learning curve analysis of the first 100 robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomies performed by a single surgeon. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 124: 88– 91.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  64. Gala R, Orejuela F, Gerten K, Lockrow E, Kilpatrick C, Chohan L, et al. Effect of validated skills simulation on operating room performance in obstetrics and gynecology residents: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121: 578– 84.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  65. Shore EM, Grantcharov TP, Husslein H, Shirreff L, Dedy NJ, McDermott CD, et al. Validating a standardized laparoscopy curriculum for gynecology residents: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215: 204.e1– 11.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  66. Satava RM, Stefanidis D, Levy JS, Smith R, Martin JR, Monfared S, et al. Proving the effectiveness of the Fundamentals of Robotic Surgery (FRS) skills curriculum: a single-blinded, multispecialty, multi-institutional randomized control trial [published online January 31, 2019]. Ann Surg . DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003220.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  67. Chen R, Rodrigues Armijo P, Krause C, Siu KC, Oleynikov D. A comprehensive review of robotic surgery curriculum and training for residents, fellows, and postgraduate surgical education. SAGES Robotic Task Force. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 361– 7.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  68. Smith R, Patel V, Satava R. Fundamentals of robotic surgery: a course of basic robotic surgery skills based upon a 14-society consensus template of outcomes measures and curriculum development. Int J Med Robot 2014; 10: 379– 84.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  69. Guidelines for privileging for robotic-assisted gynecologic laparoscopy. AAGL Advancing Minimally Invasive Gynecology Worldwide. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014; 21: 157– 67.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  70. Estes SJ, Goldenberg D, Winder JS, Juza RM, Lyn-Sue JR. Best practices for robotic surgery programs. JSLS 2017; 21: e2016.00102.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  71. Lenihan JPJr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U. What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008; 15: 589– 94.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  72. Sgarbura O, Vasilescu C. The decisive role of the patient-side surgeon in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 3149– 55.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  73. Newcomb LK, Bradley MS, Truong T, Tang M, Comstock B, Li YJ, et al. Correlation of virtual reality simulation and dry lab robotic technical skills. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018; 25: 689– 96.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  74. Goh AC, Goldfarb DW, Sander JC, Miles BJ, Dunkin BJ. Global evaluative assessment of robotic skills: validation of a clinical assessment tool to measure robotic surgical skills. J Urol 2012; 187: 247– 52.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  75. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 273– 8.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location
  76. Siddiqui NY, Galloway ML, Geller EJ, Green IC, Hur HC, Langston K, et al. Validity and reliability of the robotic Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 1193– 9.
    Article Locations:
    Article Location

Published online on August 20, 2020.

Copyright 2020 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, posted on the internet, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

409 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024-2188

Robot-assisted surgery for noncancerous gynecologic conditions. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 810. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2020;136:e22–30.

This information is designed as an educational resource to aid clinicians in providing obstetric and gynecologic care, and use of this information is voluntary. This information should not be considered as inclusive of all proper treatments or methods of care or as a statement of the standard of care. It is not intended to substitute for the independent professional judgment of the treating clinician. Variations in practice may be warranted when, in the reasonable judgment of the treating clinician, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources, or advances in knowledge or technology. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reviews its publications regularly; however, its publications may not reflect the most recent evidence. Any updates to this document can be found on acog.org or by calling the ACOG Resource Center.

While ACOG makes every effort to present accurate and reliable information, this publication is provided “as is” without any warranty of accuracy, reliability, or otherwise, either express or implied. ACOG does not guarantee, warrant, or endorse the products or services of any firm, organization, or person. Neither ACOG nor its officers, directors, members, employees, or agents will be liable for any loss, damage, or claim with respect to any liabilities, including direct, special, indirect, or consequential damages, incurred in connection with this publication or reliance on the information presented.

All ACOG committee members and authors have submitted a conflict of interest disclosure statement related to this published product. Any potential conflicts have been considered and managed in accordance with ACOG’s Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policy. The ACOG policies can be found on acog.org. For products jointly developed with other organizations, conflict of interest disclosures by representatives of the other organizations are addressed by those organizations. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial involvement in the development of the content of this published product.

Topics
Computer-assisted surgery Computer-assisted therapy Credentialing Gynecologic surgical procedures Robotic surgical procedures
Download PDF