The Use of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Hysterectomy in the Patient With a Scarred or Obliterated Anterior Cul-de-sac

Objective: The scarred or obliterated anterior cul-de-sac may pose a challenge to hysterectomy by any route. Conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy is fraught with technical limitations that limit the ability to compensate for the altered anatomy. This study will evaluate the feasibility of applying robot-assisted laparoscopy to managing these patients. Methods: Six patients with suspected pelvic adhesive disease involving the anterior cul-de-sac underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications. Data were collected and analyzed as a retrospective case series analysis. Results: We attempted 6 robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomies with no conversions to laparotomy. The mean uterine weight was 121.7g (range, 70 to 166.3). Mean operating time was 254 minutes (range, 170 to 368). The average estimated blood loss was 87.5 mL. One patient developed a delayed vaginal cuff hematoma. The average length of hospital stay was 1.3 days. Conclusion: Robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy is a feasible technique in patients with a scarred or obliterated anterior cul-de-sac and may provide a tool to overcome the surgical limitations seen with conventional laparoscopy.

[1]  J. Mäkinen,et al.  Morbidity of 10 110 hysterectomies by type of approach. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[2]  M. Diamond,et al.  Are pelvic adhesions preventable? , 2003, Surgical technology international.

[3]  A. García-Ruiz,et al.  Full robotic assistance for laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: a case report. , 1999, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[4]  Mark Whittaker,et al.  The eVALuate study: two parallel randomised trials, one comparing laparoscopic with abdominal hysterectomy, the other comparing laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  Concepcion R. Diaz-Arrastia,et al.  Laparoscopic hysterectomy using a computer-enhanced surgical robot , 2002, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[6]  P. Getzoff.  Surgical aspects of infertility. , 1975, Clinics in endocrinology and metabolism.

[7]  M. Degueldre,et al.  Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. , 2000, Fertility and sterility.

[8]  D. Olive,et al.  The AAGL classification system for laparoscopic hysterectomy. , 2000, The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.

[9]  M. Carlson,et al.  Robotically Assisted Endoscopic Ovarian Transposition , 2003, JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.

[10]  B. Morrow,et al.  Hysterectomy surveillance--United States, 1980-1993. , 1997, MMWR. CDC surveillance summaries : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. CDC surveillance summaries.

[11]  C. Steiner,et al.  Hysterectomy Rates in the United States 1990–1997 , 2002, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  R. Garry,et al.  Laparoscopic Hysterectomy , 1999, Seminars in laparoscopic surgery.

[13]  D. Grimes,et al.  Hysterectomy in the United States , 1983, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  H. Helenius,et al.  One-year cohort of abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic hysterectomies: complications and subjective outcomes. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[15]  H. Peterson,et al.  Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988‐1990 , 1994, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  J. Coste,et al.  Laparoscopic myomectomy: predicting the risk of conversion to an open procedure. , 2001, Human reproduction.