Skip to main content

Robotics and Infertility

  • Chapter
Robotic Urologic Surgery

Abstract

Surgery in the field of reproduction has traditionally been taught utilizing tradition laparotomy incision. The advantages of the laparotomy approach include depth perception and tactile feedback from the resistance of tissue/organ dynamics. In addition, there is an ease of intraabdominal suturing from the six degrees of freedom afforded from the human wrist. Although a laparotomy is advantageous for the surgeon compared to other surgical techniques, there are disadvantages for the patient, including a large abdominal incision, prolonged hospitalization, increased postoperative analgesic requirements, and increased morbidity.1,2 This has led some surgeons to seek out minimally invasive approaches. The first laparoscopy was described by Ott from Petrograd, who inspected the abdominal cavity using a head mirror and an abdominal wall speculum in 1901, calling the procedure ventroscopy.3 However, it was the first International Symposium of Gynecologic Endoscopy in 1964 that initiated interest in laparoscopic tubal sterilization,4 gamete intrafallopian tubal transfer,5 and other laparoscopic gynecologic procedures in the ensuing four decades.6

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Yuen PM, Yu KM, Yip SK, et al. A randomized prospective study of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the management of benign ovarian masses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:109–114.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lo L, Pun TC, Chan S. Tubal ectopic pregnancy: an evaluation of laparoscopic surgery versus laparotomy in 614 patients. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol 1999;39:185–187.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gunning JE. The history of laparoscopy. J Reprod Med 1974;12:222–226.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Siegler AM, Berenyi KJ. Laparoscopy in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 1969;34:572–577.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Steptoe PC. Laparoscopy in gynecology. London: E & S Livingston Ltd.; 1967:1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Peterson EP, Behrman SJ. Laparoscopy of the infertile patient. Obstet Gynecol 1970;36:363–367.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stylopoulos N, Rattner D. Robotics and ergonomics. Surg Clin N Am 2003;83:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sturges RH, Wright PK. A quantification of manual dexterity. Robotics Computer Integr Manufacturing 1989;6:237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD. Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 1999;13:466–468.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hagberg M. Electromyographic signs of should muscular fatigue in two elevated arm positions. Am J Phys Med 1981;60:111–121.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ballantyne GH. Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1389–1402.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Margossian H, Garcia-Ruiz A, Falcone T, et al. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical uterine horn anastomosis. Fertil Steril 1998;70: 530–534.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Falcone T, Goldberg JM, Margossian H, Stevens L. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical anastomosis: a human pilot study. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1040–1042.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Goldberg JM, Falcone T. Laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis with and without robotic assistance. Hum Reprod 2003;18:145–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Degueldre M, Vandromme J, Huong PT, Cadiere GB. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril 2000;74:1020–1023.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Dharia SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotic assisted tubal reanastomosis in a Fellowship Training Program [abstract]. ESHRE Annual Meeting; June 2004; Berlin, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dharia SP, Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Malizia BA. Robotically assisted tubal sterilization reversal: surgical technique and cost-effectiveness versus conventional surgery [abstract]. American Society for Reproductive Medicine Annual Meeting; October 2004; Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Advincula AP, Song A, Burke W, Reynolds RK. Preliminary experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc2004;11:511–518.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Falcone T, Bedaiwy MA. Minimally invasive management of uterine fibroids. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2002;14:401–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Molpus KL, Wedergren JS, Carlson MA. Robotically assisted endoscopic ovarian transposition. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 2003;7:59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gutt CN, Markus B, Kim ZG, et al. Early experiences of robotic surgery in children. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1083–1086.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Schoor RA, Ross L, Niederberge C. Robotic assisted microsurgical vassal reconstruction in a model system. World J Urol 2000;21:48.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kuang W, Shin PR, Oder M, Thomas AJ Jr. Robotic-assisted vasovasotomy: a two-layer technique in an animal model. J Urol 2004;65:811–814.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schiff J, Li PS, Goldstein M. Robotic microsurgical vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: a prospective randomized study in a rat model. J Urol 2004;171:1720–1725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kuang W, Shin PR, Matin S, Thomas AJ Jr. Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy. J Urol 2004;171:300–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Germay O, et al. Feasibility of robotic laparoscopic surgery: 146 cases. World J Surg 2001;25:1467–1477.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Patel, S.D. (2007). Robotics and Infertility. In: Patel, V.R. (eds) Robotic Urologic Surgery. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-704-6_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-704-6_25

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84628-545-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-704-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics