References
1. Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, Hayati S. A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1988. 35153–160.
2. Davies BL, Hibberd RD, Ng WS, Timoney AG, Wickham JE. The development of a surgeon robot for prostatectomies. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1991. 20535–38.
3. Paul HA, Bargar WL, Mittlestadt B, Musits B, Taylor RH, Kazanzides P, Zuhars J, Williamson B, Hanson W. Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992. (285)57–66.
4. Falcone T, Goldberg J, Garcia-Ruiz A, Margossian H, Stevens L. Full robotic assistance for laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: a case report. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 1999. 9107–113.
5. Song JY. Future perspectives of robot surgery in gynecology. Proceedings of the 12th workshop of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery 2012. 2012 Jun 3; Seoul, Korea. Seoul: Korean Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery;
6. Mukhopadhaya N, De Silva C, Manyonda IT. Conventional myomectomy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2008. 22677–705.
7. Jin C, Hu Y, Chen XC, Zheng FY, Lin F, Zhou K, Chen FD, Gu HZ. Laparoscopic versus open myomectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009. 14514–21.
8. Tulandi T, Murray C, Guralnick M. Adhesion formation and reproductive outcome after myomectomy and second-look laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol 1993. 82213–215.
9. Takeuchi H, Kinoshita K. Evaluation of adhesion formation after laparoscopic myomectomy by systematic second-look microlaparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2002. 9442–446.
10. Luciano AA. Myomectomy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2009. 52362–371.
11. Quaas AM, Einarsson JI, Srouji S, Gargiulo AR. Robotic myomectomy: a review of indications and techniques. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2010. 3185–191.
12. Advincula AP, Xu X, Goudeau S 4th, Ransom SB. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparison of short-term surgical outcomes and immediate costs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007. 14698–705.
13. Ascher-Walsh CJ, Capes TL. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy is an improvement over laparotomy in women with a limited number of myomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010. 17306–310.
14. Nash K, Feinglass J, Zei C, Lu G, Mengesha B, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Lin A. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy versus abdominal myomectomy: a comparative analysis of surgical outcomes and costs. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012. 285435–440.
15. Bedient CE, Magrina JF, Noble BN, Kho RM. Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009. 201566.e1–566.e5.
16. Lonnerfors C, Persson J. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy: a feasible technique for removal of unfavorably localized myomas. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009. 88994–999.
17. Carvalho L, Abrao MS, Deshpande A, Falcone T. Robotics as a new surgical minimally invasive approach to treatment of endometriosis: a systematic review. Int J Med Robot 2012. 8160–165.
18. Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J 2011. 221445–1457.
19. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, Zyczynski H. Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 2004. 104805–823.
20. Carroll AW, Lamb E, Hill AJ, Gill EJ, Matthews CA. Surgical management of apical pelvic support defects: the impact of robotic technology. Int Urogynecol J 2012. 04. 12. [Epub]. DOI:
10.1007/s00192-012-1749-4.
21. Vitobello D, Siesto G, Bulletti C. Robotic sacral hysteropexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Med Robot 2012. 8114–117.
22. Soto E, Lo Y, Friedman K, Soto C, Nezhat F, Chuang L, Gretz H. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus da Vinci robotic hysterectomy: is using the robot beneficial? J Gynecol Oncol 2011. 22253–259.
23. Nezhat CR, Burrell MO, Nezhat FR, Benigno BB, Welander CE. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with paraaortic and pelvic node dissection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992. 166864–865.
24. Nezhat F. Minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: laparoscopy versus robotics. Gynecol Oncol 2008. 1112 Suppl. S29–S32.
25. Zakashansky K, Chuang L, Gretz H, Nagarsheth NP, Rahaman J, Nezhat FR. A case-controlled study of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy versus radical abdominal hysterectomy in a fellowship training program. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007. 171075–1082.
26. Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Feltmate CM. Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. Gynecol Oncol 2008. 111425–430.
27. Boggess JF, Gehrig PA, Cantrell L, Shafer A, Ridgway M, Skinner EN, Fowler WC. A comparative study of 3 surgical methods for hysterectomy with staging for endometrial cancer: robotic assistance, laparoscopy, laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008. 199360.e1–360.e9.
28. Plante M, Renaud MC, Hoskins IA, Roy M. Vaginal radical trachelectomy: a valuable fertility-preserving option in the management of early-stage cervical cancer. A series of 50 pregnancies and review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 2005. 983–10.
29. Bernardini M, Barrett J, Seaward G, Covens A. Pregnancy outcomes in patients after radical trachelectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003. 1891378–1382.
30. Burnett AF, Stone PJ, Duckworth LA, Roman JJ. Robotic radical trachelectomy for preservation of fertility in early cervical cancer: case series and description of technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009. 16569–572.