Outcome Assessment of First Robot-Assisted Gynecologic Surgeries in the Centre for Robotic Surgery, Bashkir State Medical University Clinic

Introduction. Prolapse of the pelvic organs, atypical hyperplasia of the endometrium, uterine scar dehiscence, and endometriosis are some of the most common conditions found in gynecological practice. Women with these disorders suffer from the deterioration of their quality of life, social status and reproductive potential. There are many surgical techniques available for the treatment of these patients. This article offers a discussion on a surgical treatment with the use of the da Vinci robotic system. Robot-assisted surgery with the use of the da Vinci robotic system is demonstrating a recent gain in popularity. Whenever possible, it is now the method of choice for the surgical treatment strategy for patients with premorbid obesity.

Aim: to assess the outcomes of the first robot-assisted gynecologic surgical procedures performed at the Department of Robotic Surgery at the Clinical Hospital of the Bashkir State Medical University (Ufa).

Materials and methods. This paper offers a description and assessment of the first robot-assisted procedures performed as part of the “Robot-assisted Surgery in Gynecology” master class.

Results and discussion. The following types of procedures were used for the outcome assessment: robot-assisted laparoscopy, supracervical hysterectomy with appendages, sacro-vaginopexy with prolene flap; robot-assisted hysterectomy with appendages; robot-assisted metroplasty and robot-assisted laparoscopy with excision of retrocervical endometrial infiltrate.

Conclusions. The robot-assisted surgical treatment method is the most beneficial management strategy ensuring the ease of the actual surgery as well as a speedy recovery of patients and the reduction of possible complications in the early postoperative period.

1. Musin I.I., Imelbayeva A.G., Mehtiyeva E.R. Surgical treatment and prophylaxis of prolapse of genitals in different age groups. Creative surgery and oncology. 2017;7(4):38-42 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24060/2076-3093-2017-7-4-38-42

2. Musin I.I., Yashchuk A.G., Zaynullina R.M., Naftulovich R.A., Popova E.M., Imelbayeva A.G., et al. The principle of choice of surgical techniques for the correction of genital prolapse in different age groups. Practical medicine. 2017;(7):111-4 (In Russ.).

3. Pavlov V.N., Yashchuk A.G., Kazikhinurov A.A., Musin I.I., Zauinul-lina R.M., Kulavskii V.A., et al. Structural-morphological changes of the connective tissue of the vaginal mucosa and perineal skin in women with stress urinary incontinence. Urologiia. 2017;(5):15-20 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18565/urology.2017.5.15-20

4. Nakadate R., Arata J., Hashizume M. Next-generation robotic surgery — from the aspect of surgical robots developed by industry. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2015;24(1):2-7. DOi: 10.3109/13645706.2014.1003140

5. Corrado G., Vizza E., Cela V., Mereu L., Bogliolo S., Legge F, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic hysterectomy in obese and extremely obese patients with endometrial cancer: A multi-institutional analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44(12):1935-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.08.021

6. Maenpaa M.M., Nieminen K., Tomas E.I., Laurila M., Luukkaala T.H., Maenpaa J.U. Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5):588.e1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.005

7. Lingohr P., Dohmen J., Matthaei H., Konieczny N., Hoffmann J., Bolke E., et al. Cytokine expression in the visceral adipose tissue after laparoscopic and conventional surgery in a rodent model. Eur J Med Res. 2016;21:4. DOI: 10.1186/s40001-016-0199-8

8. George E.I., Brand T.C., LaPorta A., Marescaux J., Satava R.M. Origins of robotic surgery: from skepticism to standard of care. JSLS. 2018;22(4):e2018.00039. DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2018.00039

9. Dondelinger R. Robotic surgery systems. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2014;48(1):55-9. DOI: 10.2345/0899-8205-48.1.55

10. Popov A.A., Atroshenko K.V., Slobodyanuyk B.A., Ashurova G.Z., Zingan S.I. Robotic surgery in gynecology. Kuban Scientific Medical Bulletin. 2016;(1):116-20 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.25207/1608-6228-2016-1-116-120

11. Wasielewski A. Guideline implementation: minimally invasive surgery, part 1. AORN J. 2017;106(1):50-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.aorn.2017.04.017

12. Istre O. (editor). Minimally invasive gynecological surgery. Springer; 2014. 206 p.

13. Schuessler Z., Schuessler H., Strohaber J. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy in a community hospital after seven years of experience. Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery. 2018;1(2):42-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.lers.2018.07.001

14. Berelavichus S.V., Kriger A.G., Titova N.L., Smirnov A.V., Poliakov I.S., Kaldarov A.R., et al. Cost price of robot-assisted and laparoscopic operations. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2015;(4):31-4 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/hirurgia2015431-34

15. Gosrisirikul C., Don Chang K., Raheem A.A., Rha K.H. New era of robotic surgical systems. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2018;11(4):291-9. DOI: 10.1111/ases.12660

16. Nasyrova N.I., Ozolinya L.A., Borisova M.S., Askerova N.G. Robot assisted operations in gynecology (review). Bulletin of Russian State Medical University. 2014;(1):36-41 (In Russ.).

17. Usta T., Karacan T., Kale A., Mutlu S., Tiryaki T. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pectouteropexy: an alternative uterus-sparing technique for pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(11):1751-3. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3326-3