OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Ochsner journal
2013;13 (4): 517-24.

Anesthetic considerations in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery.

Alan D Kaye, Nalini Vadivelu, Nitin Ahuja, Sukanya Mitra, Dan Silasi, Richard D Urman
Author Information
  1. Alan D Kaye: Departments of Anesthesiology and Pharmacology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA.
  2. Nalini Vadivelu: Department of Anesthesiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
  3. Nitin Ahuja: Department of Anesthesiology, Chandigarh Government Medical College, Chandigarh, India.
  4. Sukanya Mitra: Department of Anesthesiology, Chandigarh Government Medical College, Chandigarh, India.
  5. Dan Silasi: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
  6. Richard D Urman: Department of Anesthesiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
PMID: 24358000

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery has evolved over the past 2 decades with constantly improving technology that assists surgeons in multiple subspecialty disciplines. The surgical requirements of lithotomy and steep Trendelenburg positions, along with the creation of a pneumoperitoneum and lack of direct access to the patient all present management challenges in gynecologic surgery. patient positioning requirements can have significant physiologic effects and can result in many complications.
METHODS: This review focuses on the anesthetic and surgical implications of robot-assisted technology in gynecologic surgery.
CONCLUSION: Good communication among team members and knowledge of the nuances of robotic surgery have the potential to improve patient outcomes, increase efficiency, and reduce complications.

Keywords

Anesthesia gynecologic surgical procedures robotics surgical procedures—minimally invasive

References

  1. Anesth Analg. 1998 Dec;87(6):1393-7 [PMID: 9842835]
  2. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Jan;104(1):16-22 [PMID: 19933173]
  3. Anesthesiology. 2002 Jul;97(1):75-81 [PMID: 12131106]
  4. Lancet. 1952 Oct 18;2(6738):759-60 [PMID: 12991571]
  5. Anesth Analg. 2002 May;94(5):1345-50 [PMID: 11973218]
  6. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2011;2011:852061 [PMID: 22190948]
  7. AANA J. 2011 Apr;79(2):115-21 [PMID: 21560974]
  8. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006 Nov;49(11):1772-80 [PMID: 17036205]
  9. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Aug;114(2 Suppl):S24-31 [PMID: 19573702]
  10. Fertil Steril. 2000 Nov;74(5):1020-3 [PMID: 11056252]
  11. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010 May;27(5):478-80 [PMID: 19918180]
  12. BJU Int. 2010 Feb;105(4):520-7 [PMID: 19735257]
  13. World J Surg. 2001 Nov;25(11):1467-77 [PMID: 11760751]
  14. J Robot Surg. 2007;1(1):31-7 [PMID: 25484936]
  15. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008 Sep;20(5):581-9 [PMID: 19106665]
  16. Lancet. 1953 Mar 14;1(6759):522-4 [PMID: 13036056]
  17. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007 Sep-Oct;14(5):664-72; quiz 673 [PMID: 17848335]
  18. Anesth Analg. 2011 Nov;113(5):1069-75 [PMID: 21233502]
  19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;(2):CD008978 [PMID: 22336855]
  20. Eur Heart J. 2005 Feb;26(4):384-416 [PMID: 15681577]
  21. Anaesthesia. 2006 May;61(5):439-43 [PMID: 16674617]
  22. Anesth Analg. 1993 May;76(5):1067-71 [PMID: 8484509]
  23. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Aug;19(4):331-6 [PMID: 17625414]
  24. J Robot Surg. 2007;1(2):119-23 [PMID: 25484947]
  25. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006 May-Jun;13(3):245-8 [PMID: 16698535]
  26. Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2008 Jun;19(5):967-82 [PMID: 18637599]
  27. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2010 Dec;23(6):697-703 [PMID: 20847690]
  28. BJU Int. 2011 Sep;108(6 Pt 2):1024-7 [PMID: 21917106]
  29. BJU Int. 2013 Mar;111(3):518-23 [PMID: 22928639]
  30. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Mar;51(1):18-25 [PMID: 22482963]
  31. J Surg Oncol. 2012 Apr 1;105(5):481-7 [PMID: 22441900]
  32. Ann Surg. 2004 Jan;239(1):14-21 [PMID: 14685095]
  33. J Robot Surg. 2012 Sep;6(3):269-71 [PMID: 27638287]
  34. Obstet Gynecol. 1992 May;79(5 ( Pt 2)):840-1 [PMID: 1533024]
  35. Urology. 2010 Nov;76(5):1122-4 [PMID: 20570321]
  36. Anesth Analg. 1999 Sep;89(3):800 [PMID: 10475329]
  37. Anesth Analg. 2009 Aug;109(2):473-8 [PMID: 19608821]
  38. J Endourol. 2013 Jan;27(1):45-51 [PMID: 22770120]
  39. J Int Med Res. 2011;39(3):1084-9 [PMID: 21819742]
  40. Br J Anaesth. 2010 Apr;104(4):433-9 [PMID: 20167583]
  41. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 Jul-Aug;17(4):504-7 [PMID: 20471916]
  42. Curr Opin Urol. 2011 Jan;21(1):78-83 [PMID: 20962647]
  43. BJU Int. 2006 Sep;98(3):508-13 [PMID: 16925745]
  44. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010 May-Jun;17(3):295-300 [PMID: 20303833]
  45. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2012 Jul;40(4):614-21 [PMID: 22813488]
  46. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1995 Oct;39(7):949-55 [PMID: 8848897]
  47. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2010 Nov;59(5):329-34 [PMID: 21179295]
  48. Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Feb;103(2):374-82 [PMID: 14754710]
  49. JSLS. 2006 Jul-Sep;10(3):317-20 [PMID: 17212887]
Journal Article Review

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0surgerysurgicalgynecologictechnologyrequirementspatientcancomplicationsBACKGROUND:Robotic-assistedevolvedpast2decadesconstantlyimprovingassistssurgeonsmultiplesubspecialtydisciplineslithotomysteepTrendelenburgpositionsalongcreationpneumoperitoneumlackdirectaccesspresentmanagementchallengesPatientpositioningsignificantphysiologiceffectsresultmanyMETHODS:reviewfocusesanestheticimplicationsrobot-assistedCONCLUSION:GoodcommunicationamongteammembersknowledgenuancesroboticpotentialimproveoutcomesincreaseefficiencyreduceAnestheticconsiderationsrobotic-assistedAnesthesiaproceduresroboticsprocedures—minimallyinvasive

Similar Articles

Cited By (13)