In the 20 years since its inception, robotic surgery has evolved greatly in its design and clinical use. Most recently, the approach to training and gaining proficiency in robotic surgery techniques has also matured. This article reviews the development of robotic surgery systems, the trajectory of their use for patients with benign and malignant gynecologic conditions, and the advances in novel technologies that are driving the applications of robotic surgery forward. (J GYNECOL SURG 39:204)
NatarajanP, FrenzelJC, SmaltzDH. Demystifying Big Data and Machine Learning for Healthcare. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2017.
10.
ReynoldsRK, AdvinculaAP. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: Technique and initial experience. Am J Surg, 2006; 191:555.
11.
ReynoldsRK, BurkeWM, AdvinculaAP. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic staging of gynecologic malignancies. JSLS, 2005; 9:149.
12.
CasarinJ, SongC, MultinuF, et al.Implementing robotic surgery for uterine cancer in the United States: Better outcomes without increased costs. Gynecol Oncol, 2020; 156(2):451.
13.
LimPC, CraneJT, EnglishEJ, 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.
14.
CarbonnelM, MoawadGN, TaraziMM, et al.Robotic hysterectomy for benign indications: What have we learned from a decade?. JSLS, 2021; 25:00091.
15.
KaakiB, LewisE, TakallapallyS, et al.Direct cost of hysterectomy: Comparison of robotic versus other routes. J Robot Surg, 2020; 14:305.
16.
WalkerJL, PiedmonteMR, SpirtosNM, et al.Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol, 2009; 27:5331.
17.
WalkerJL, PiedmonteMR, SpirtosNM, et al.Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 study. J Clin Oncol, 2012; 30:695.
18.
GaiaG, HollowayRW, SantoroL, et al.Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for endometrial cancer compared with traditional laparoscopic and laparotomy approaches: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol, 2010; 116:1422.
19.
RanL, JinJ, XuY, et al.Comparison of robotic surgery with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer: A meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2014; 9:0108361.
20.
NamJH, ParkJY, KimDY, et al.Laparoscopic versus open radical hysterectomy in early-stage cervical cancer: Long-term survival outcomes in a matched cohort study. Ann Oncol, 2012; 23:903.
21.
RamirezPT, FrumovitzM, ParejaR, et al.Minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med, 2018; 379:1895.
22.
MelamedA, MargulDJ, ChenL, et al.Survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. N Engl J Med, 2018; 379:1905.
23.
CusimanoMC, BaxterNN, GienLT, et al.Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2019; 221:619.e1.
24.
DooDW, KirklandCT, GriswoldLH, et al.Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: Results from a single high volume institution. Gynecol Oncol, 2019; 153:242.
25.
KimSI, ChoJH, SeolA, et al.Comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB1–IIA2 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 2019; 153:3.
26.
MagrinaJF, EspadaM, MunozR, et al.Robotic adnexectomy compared with laparoscopy for adnexal mass. Obstet Gynecol, 2009; 114:581.
27.
EskanderR, BermanM, KederL. Practice Bulletin No. 174: Evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol, 2016; 128:e210.
28.
EngelenMJA, KosHE, WillemsePHB, et al.Surgery by consultant gynecologic oncologists improves survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer, 2006; 106:589.
29.
MelamedA, NiteckiR, BorutaDM, et al.Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for debulking ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Obstet Gynecol, 2017; 129:861.
30.
AckroydSA, ThomasS, AngelC, et al.Interval robotic cytoreduction following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. J Robot Surg, 2018; 12:245.
31.
AbitbolJ, GotliebW, ZengZ, et al.Incorporating robotic surgery into the management of ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 2019; 29:1341.
32.
SunAJ, AronM, HungAJ. Novel training methods for robotic surgery. Indian J Urol, 2014; 30:333.
33.
FrederickPJ, SzenderJB, HusseinAA, et al.Surgical competency for robot-assisted hysterectomy: Development and validation of a Robotic Hysterectomy Assessment Score (RHAS). J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2017; 24:55.
34.
AbboudiH, KhanMS, AboumarzoukO, et al.Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators—a systematic review. BJU Int, 2013; 111:194.
35.
BoitanoTKL, SmithHJ, CohenJG, et al.Implementation and evaluation of a novel subspecialty society fellows robotic surgical course: The SGO minimally invasive academy surgical curriculum. J Gynecol Oncol, 2021; 32(2):e26.
36.
ValdisM, ChuMWA, SchlachtaC, et al.Evaluation of robotic cardiac surgery simulation training: A randomized controlled trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2016; 151:1498.e2.
37.
TurnerTB, KimKH. Mapping the robotic hysterectomy learning curve and re-establishing surgical training metrics. J Gynecol Oncol, 2021; 32(4):e58.
