**Author details**

Pranjal H. Desai1 \* and Ryan J. Gillentine2

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North Mississippi Medical Clinics, West Point, MS, USA

2 William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Hattiesburg, MS, USA

\*Address all correspondence to: pranjaldesaiobgy@gmail.com

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

**117**

*Present Challenges of Robotics in Gynecology DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96780*

Jamieson DJ, Morrow B, Podgornik MN, Brett KM, MarchbanksPA. Inpatient hysterectomy surveillance in the United States, 2000-2004. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(1):34.e1-7. DOI:

comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(1):44-49. DOI:10.1097/

[8] Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA. 2013;309(7):689-698.

[9] Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M.

[10] Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau St, Ransom SB. Robot-assisted laparoscopic

myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of shortterm surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14:698-705. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[11] Walker JL, Piedmonte MR,

[12] Walker JL, Piedmonte MR,

Mannel RS, et al. Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer. Gynecologic Oncology Group Study LAP2. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5331-5336. DOI: 10.1200/

[13] Reynolds RK, Burke WM,

Advincula AP. Preliminary experience

Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB,

Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, et al. Recurrence and survival after random assignment to laparoscopy versus laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer. Gynecologic Oncology Group LAP2 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:695-700. DOI: 10.1200/

jmig.2007.06.008.

JCO.2011.38.8645.

JCO.2009.22.3248

SPV.0b013e3181fa44cf

DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.186.

Estimation of the Acquisition and Operating Costs for Robotic Surgery. JAMA. 2018;320(8):835-836.

DOI:10.1001/jama.2018.9219

[2] Cohen SL, Vitonis AF, Einarsson JI. Updated hysterectomy surveillance and factors associated with minimally

2014;18(3):e2014.00096. DOI: 10.4293/

[1] Whiteman MK, Hillis SD,

10.1016/j.ajog.2007.05.039.

invasive hysterectomy. JSLS.

[3] Liu H, Lu D, Wang L, Shi G, Song H, Clarke J. Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;(2):CD008978. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008978.pub2.

[4] Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, Plana MN. Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010;252(2):254-262. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e6239e.

[5] Payne TN, Dauterive FR. A comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to robotically assisted hysterectomy: surgical outcomes in a community practice. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:286-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.01.008

[6] Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150(1):92-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[7] T Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy:

ejogrb.2010.02.012.

JSLS.2014.00096.

**References**

*Present Challenges of Robotics in Gynecology DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96780*
