Robotic surgery is gaining widespread popularity due to advantages such as reduced blood loss, reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay and better visualisation of fine structures. Robots are being used in urological, cardiac, thoracic, orthopaedic, gynaecological and general surgery. Robotic surgery received US Food and Drug Administration approval for use in gynaecological surgery in 2005.
The various gynaecological robotic operations being performed are myomectomy, total and supracervical hysterectomy, ovarian cystectomy, sacral colpopexy, tubal reanastomosis, lymph node dissection, surgery of retroperitoneal ectopic pregnancy, Moskowitz procedure and endometriosis surgery.
The anaesthetic considerations include difficult access to the patient intraoperatively, steep Trendelenburg position, long surgical duration and the impact of pneumoperitoneum. We highlight the complications encountered in these surgeries and methods to prevent these complications.
Robotic gynaecological surgery can be safely performed after considering the physiological effects of the steep Trendelenburg position and of pneumoperitoneum. The benefits of the surgical procedure should be weighed against the risks in patients with underlying cardiorespiratory problems.
AwangM.S., AbdullahM.Z.Robotic neurosurgery: a preliminary study using an active vision-guided robotic arm for bone drilling and endoscopic manoeuvres. Malays J Med Sci2011; 18: 53–57.
2.
AdvinculaA.P., SongA.The role of robotic surgery in gynecology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol2007; 19: 331–336.
3.
SwanK., AdvinculaA.P.Role of Robotic surgery in urogynecologic surgery and radical hysterectomy: how far can we go?Curr Opin Urol2011; 21: 78–83.
KruijdenbergC.B., Vanden EndenL.C., HendriksJ.C., ZusteizedP.L., BekkersR.L.Robot assisted versus total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: a review. Gynecol Oncol2011; 120: 334–339.
6.
AdvinculaA.P., XuX., GoudeanS., RansomS.B.Robot assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol2007; 14: 698–705.
7.
RezaM., MaesoS., BlascoJ.A., AndradasE.Meta analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg2010; 97: 1772–1783.
Mejia-GomezJ., KoganL., MintzY., ShveikyD., BenshushanA.Robotic-assisted gynecological surgeries: a series of the first 14 cases. Harefuah2011; 150: 709–712.
10.
GainsburgD.M., WaxD., ReichD.L., CarlucciJ.R., SamadiD.B.Intraoperative management of robotic assisted versus open radical prostatectomy. JSLS2010; 14: 1–5.
11.
VenkatP., ChenL.M., Young-LinN., KietT.K., YoungG., AmatoriD.An economic analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: Costs, charges and reimbursements to hospitals and professionals. Gynecol Oncol2012; 125: 237–240.
12.
MagrinaJ.F., KnoR.M., WeaverA.L., MonteroR.P., MagtibayP.M.Robotic radical hysterectomy: comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol2008; 109: 86–91.
13.
BoggessJ., GehregP., CantrellL., ShaferA., RidgwayM., SkinnerE.A case control study of robot-assisted type III radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection, compared to open radical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol2008; 199: 357.
14.
PayneT.N., DauteriveF.R.A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol2008; 15: 286–291.
15.
BoggessJ., GehregP., CantrellL., ShaferA., RidgwayM., SkinnerE.A comparative study of the three surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy and laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol2008; 199: 360.
16.
GellerE.J., SiddiquiN.Y., WuJ.M., ViscoA.G.Short term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy, compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol2008; 112: 1201–1206.
17.
PitterM.C., AndersonP., BlissettA., PambertonN.Robotic-assisted gynaecological surgery-establishing training criteria; minimizing operative time and blood loss. Int J Med Robot2008; 4: 114–120.
18.
LenihanJ.P., KovandaC., Seshadri-KreadanU.What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynaecological surgery?J Minim Invasive Gynecol2008; 15: 589–594.
NezhatC., SaberiN.S., ShahmohamadyB., NezhatF.Robotic assisted laparoscopy in the gynaecological surgery. JSLS2006; 10: 317–320.
21.
RodgersA.K., GoldbergJ.M., HammelJ.P., FalconeT.Tubal anastomosis by robotic, compared with outpatient minilaparatomy. Obstet Gynecol2007; 109: 1375–1380.
22.
StoneP., BurnettA., BurtonB., RomanJ.Overcoming extreme obesity with robotic surgery. Int J Med Robot2010; 6: 382–385.
23.
MarengoF., LarraínD., BabilontiL., SpinilloA.Learning experience using the double console da Vinci surgical system in gynecology: a prospective cohort study in a University hospital. Arch Gynecol Obstet2012; 285: 441–445.
24.
JuddJ.P., SiddiquiN.Y., BarnettJ.C., ViscoA.G., HavrileskyL.J., WuJ.M.Cost minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic and abdominal Sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol2010; 17: 493–499.
25.
NishanianE., MetsB.Anaesthesia for Robotic Surgery. In: MillerR.D., ed. Miller's anaesthesia, 6th ed. New York: Elsevier2006. p. 2557–2571.
26.
KwohY.S., HouJ., JonckheereE.A., HayatiS.A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereo-tactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng1988; 35: 153–160.
27.
MarescauxJ., RubinoF.The ZEUS robotic system: experimental and clinical applications. Surg Clin North Am2003; 83: 1305–1315, vii-viii.
28.
KakarP.N., DasJ., RoyP.M., PantV.Robotic invasion of operation theatre and associated anaesthetic issues: a review. Indian J Anaesth2011; 55: 18–25.
29.
RossJ.W., PrestonM.R.Update on laparoscopic, robotic, and minimally invasive vaginal surgery for pelvic floor repair. Minerva Ginecol2009; 61: 173–186.
30.
PhongS.V.N., KohL.K.D.Anaesthesia for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: considerations for laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg position. Anaesth Intensive Care2007; 35: 281–285.
31.
KalmarA.F., FoubertL., HendrickxJ.F.A., MottrieA., AbsalomA., MortierE.P.Influence of steep Trendelenburg position and CO(2) pneumoperitoneum on cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory homeostasis during robotic prostatectomy. Br J Anaesth2010; 104: 433–439.
32.
LestarM., GunnarssonL., LagerstrandL., WiklundP., Odeberg-WernermanS.Hemodynamic perturbations during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 45 degrees Trendelenburg position. Anesth Analg2011; 113: 1069–1075.
33.
HirvonenE.A., NuutinenL.S., KaukoM.Hemodynamic changes due to Trendelenburg positioning and pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic hysterectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand1995; 39: 949–955.
34.
ChoiS.J., GwakM.S., KoJ.S., LeeH., YangM., LeeS.M.The effects of the exaggerated lithotomy position for radical perineal prostatectomy on respiratory mechanics. Anaesthesia2006; 61: 439–443.
35.
PhongS.V.N., KohL.K.D.Anaesthesia for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: considerations for laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg position. Anaesth Intensive Care2007; 35: 281–285.
36.
TakahataO., KunisawaT., NagashimaM., MamiyaK., SakuraiK., FujitaS.Effect of age on pulmonary gas exchange during laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg lithotomy position. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand2007; 51: 687–692.
37.
SchrijversD., MottrieA., TraenK., De WolfA.M., VandermeerschE., KalmarA.F.Pulmonary gas exchange is well preserved during robot assisted surgery in steep Trendelenburg position. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg2009; 60: 229–233.
38.
AwadH., SantilliS., OhrM., RothA., YanW., FernandezS.The effects of steep trendelenburg positioning on intraocular pressure during robotic radical prostatectomy. Anesth Analg2009; 109: 473–478.
ParkE.Y., KooB.N., MinK.T., NamS.H.The effect of pneumoperitoneum in the steep Trendelenburg position on cerebral oxygenation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand2009; 53: 895–899.
41.
Martinez-SalamancaJ.I., Romero OteroJ.[Critical comparative analysis between open, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: perioperative morbidity and oncological results (Part I)]. Arch Esp Urol2007; 60: 755–65.
42.
DanicM.J., ChowM., AlexanderG., BhandariA., MenonM., BrownM.Anesthesia considerations for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a review of 1,500 cases. J Robotic Surg2007; 1: 119–123.
43.
FarnhamS.B., WebsterT.M., HerrellS.D., SmithJAJr.Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology2006; 67: 360–363.
44.
ChangC.H., LeeH.K., NamS.H.The displacement of the tracheal tube during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol2010; 27: 478–480.
45.
JakimowiczJ., StultiensG., SmuldersF.Laparoscopic insufflation of the abdomen reduces portal venous flow. Surg Endosc1998; 12: 129–132.
46.
NguyenN.T., PerezR.V., FlemingN., RiversR., WolfeB.M.Effect of prolonged pneumoperitoneum on intraoperative urine output during laparoscopic gastric bypass. J Am Coll Surg2002; 195: 476–483.
47.
KnolmayerT.J., BowyerM.W., EganJ.C., AsbunH.J.The effects of pneumoperitoneum on gastric blood flow and traditional hemodynamic measurements. Surg Endosc1998; 12: 115–118.
StewartB.T., StitzR.W., TuchM.M., LumleyJ.W.Hypothermia in open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum1999; 42: 1292–1295.
51.
MillardJ.A., HillB.B., CookP.S., FenoglioM.E., StahlgrenL.H.Intermittent sequential pneumatic compression in prevention of venous stasis associated with pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg1993; 128: 914–918; discussion 91.
52.
AtallahM.M., OthmanM.M.Robotic laparoscopic radical cystectomy inhalational versus total intravenous anesthesia: a pilot study. Middle East J Anesthesiol2009; 20: 257–263.
CostelloT.G., WebbP.Anaesthesia for robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy. Experience at a single institution. Anaesth Intensive Care2006; 34: 787–792.
