Overcoming the obstacles of visualization in robotically assisted abdominal cerclage using indocyanine green

Robotic assisted laparoscopic cerclage: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The gold standard in the management of cervical incompetence is cerclage via vaginal approach. Minimally invasive techniques, such as robotic, have been also described.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed and Scopus, searching evidence on robotic assisted laparoscopic cerclage in both pregnant and non pregnant women.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were included in this study. Cervical insufficiency, failure of transvaginal cerclage, and short cervix were the most frequent indications for robotic assisted cerclage. Mean operative time was 107.3 minutes. Mean estimated blood loss was 62.8 mL. Four patients converted to laparotomy. No postoperative complications were reported. Pregnancy after robotic cerclage was reported in 59 patients with mean gestational age at delivery of 36.4 weeks. The majority of pregnant women who underwent robotic assisted cerclage gave birth to live neonates.

CONCLUSION

Till now, evidence does not show a clear advantage of robotic over laparoscopic approach, under the evaluation of the current literature. However, further comparative studies might be essential to clarify the possible role of da Vinci robot in this field; this might be quite difficult even in the near future based on the fact that only five cases per year are described in the current literature.

Robot-Assisted Abdominal Cerclage During Pregnancy

Background and Objectives:

Cervical insufficiency is a difficult condition to diagnose and can lead to preterm birth, miscarriage, or perinatal infant morbidity and mortality. We conducted this retrospective case study and literature review to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted abdominal cerclage during pregnancy.

Methods:

We conducted a case series and a systematic review that included patients who underwent robot-assisted abdominal cerclage during pregnancy from January 2010 through March 2016.

Results:

Six patients met the criteria for the case series. Median age was 34 years (range, 28–37) at the time of the procedure. In 5 cases, the indication for transabdominal cerclage was a failed vaginal cerclage in a previous pregnancy, whereas a scarred and shortened cervix caused by a previous dilatation and curettage–induced cervical laceration was the indication in the remaining case. Median operating time was 159.5 minutes (range, 124–204), and median estimated blood loss was 25 mL (range, 10–25). No surgeries were converted to laparotomies; all patients were discharged on postoperative day 1. The median gestational age at delivery was 37.5 weeks (range, 22–39). Five patients delivered between 36 and 39 weeks. No patients had chorioamnionitis or preterm premature rupture of membranes. One patient went into preterm labor at 22 weeks, and the cerclage was removed via minilaparotomy. Eight articles met the criteria for systematic review. Sixteen patients underwent robot-assisted abdominal cerclage during pregnancy. Median age was 31.5 years (range, 25–37). The major indication in most articles was previous failed transvaginal cerclage. The median gestational ages at time of procedure and delivery were 12 weeks (range, 10–15) and 37 weeks (range, 33–39), respectively.

Conclusion:

Robot-assisted abdominal cerclage is safe and effective during pregnancy.