Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (20)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goldberg, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Falcone, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goldberg, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Falcone, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 18, No. 1, 145-147, January 2003
© 2003 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis with and without robotic assistance*

Jeffrey M. Goldberg1 and Tommaso Falcone

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: goldbej{at}ccf.org

*Presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, San Diego, California, October 21–6, 2000.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported our results with laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis with robotic assistance. The purpose of this study was to compare the duration of the procedure and hospitalization, blood loss and clinical outcomes for laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis performed with and without robotic assistance. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative case study in an academic tertiary referral centre. Laparoscopic microsurgical tubal anastomosis was performed on 10 women with robotic assistance and the subsequent 15 patients underwent the procedure without the robot. The length of the procedure, estimated blood loss (EBL), time until hospital discharge, tubal patency and clinical pregnancy rates were compared. RESULTS: The operative times were 2 h longer with robotic assistance (P < 0.001). The increased EBL with the use of the robot (70 ± 68 ml versus 20 ± 16 ml) was statistically but not clinically significant. The robot provided no benefit in patient recovery. Tubal patency and clinical pregnancy rates were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic assistance increases operative times of laparoscopic tubal anastomosis without an appreciable improvement in patient recovery or clinical outcomes.

Key words: laparoscopy/robotic surgery/tubal anastomosis


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JAMAHome page
M. A. Talamini and E. J. Hanly
Technology in the Operating Suite
JAMA, February 16, 2005; 293(7): 863 - 866.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.