FreeHand Robot-Assisted Gynecologic Surgery in Trinidad & Tobago: Case Reports
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive surgery is still at a relatively early stage throughout the Anglophone Caribbean and robotic surgery has been largely non-existent. There have been many unique obstacles to the introduction of robotic surgery in the Caribbean.
Methods: We present a case report to document the initial experience with the use of the FreeHand surgical robot during gynecologic operations in Trinidad & Tobago.
Results: Two cases are presented to highlight the use of the FreeHand robot for gynecologic operations. We outline our experiences introducing the FreeHand® robotic arm to facilitate minimally invasive gynecologic surgery in the Caribbean.
Conclusions: The FreeHand® system is a good intermediary between conventional laparoscopy and a full surgical robot. We believe this technology can be incorporated into the armamentarium of gynecologic surgeons in resource-poor nations, once there is appropriate training and intra-operative mentoring from experts familiar with the technology.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Cawich SO, Pooran S, Amow B, et al. Impact of a Medical University on Laparoscopic Surgery in a Service-Oriented Public Hospital in the Caribbean. J Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2016:9:1-8
3. Parker M, Ramdass MJ, Cawich SO, FaSiOen P, Rosin D. A Historical Perspective on the Introduction of Laparoscopic Basic Training in the Caribbean and Factors that Contribute to Sustainability of Such Training. International J Surg. 2019; 72: 6-12.
4. Wilson C, Cawich SO, Simpson LK, Baker AK. Starting a Laparoscopic Surgery Service in a Rural Community Hospital in Jamaica: Successes and Challenges of the Percy Junor Hospital Experience. Caribb Med J. 2014; 76(1): 8-11.
5. Cawich SO, Kluger MD, Francis W, et al. Review of minimally invasive pancreas surgery and opinion on its incorporation into low volume and resource poor centres. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2021; 13(10): 1122-1135
6. Cawich SO, Arulampalam T, Senasi R, Naraynsingh V. Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery: First Report from the Caribbean. Cureus. 2021; 13(10): e18739.
7. Bahall V, DeBarry L. Laparoscopic management of a true broad ligament leiomyoma in a patient with advanced endometriosis and a solitary kidney: A case report and literature review. Case Rep Womens Health. 2022; 36: e00436
8. Narayansingh G, Hoh J. The eventual successful management of ovarian torsion in a hyperstimulated ovary following in vitro fertilization: A case report. Case Rep Womens Health. 2020; 26: e00166
9. Ashrafian H, Clancy O, Grover V, Darzi A. The Evolution of Robotic Surgery: Surgical and Anaesthetic Aspects. Brit J Anaesth. 2017; 119(1): 72-84.
10. Specchia ML, Arcuri G, DiPilla A, LaGatta E, et al. The value of surgical admissions for malignant uterine cancer. A comparative analysis of robotic, laparoscopic, and laparotomy surgery in a university hospital. Front Public Health. 2022; 10: 920578
11. Lundin ES, Carlsson P, Wodlin NB, Nilsson L, Kjölhede P. Cost-Effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy versus abdominal hysterectomy in early endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecologic Cancer. 2020; 30:1719–25.
12. Marino P, Houvenaeghel G, Narducci F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of conventional vs robotic-assisted laparoscopy in gynecologic oncologic indications. Int J Gynecologic Cancer. 2015; 25:1102–8.
13. Maggioni A, Minig L, Zanagnolo V, et al. Robotic approach for cervical cancer: comparison with laparotomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 115:60–4.
14. Ind T, Laios A, Hacking M, Nobbenhuis M. A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot. 2017; 13:e1851.
15. Lim PC, Kang E, Park DH. Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010; 17:739–48.
16. Mahabir AH, Ramkissoon SCK, Thomas DA, Cawich SO, Naraynsingh V, Dapri G. An Evaluation of Horizontal Equity in Surgical Care for Gallstone Disease in a Caribbean Country. Curr Med Res Prac. 2021; 11 (2): 83-87
17. Lane T. A Short History of Robotic Surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018; 100 (6): 5-7.
18. Cawich SO, Singh Y, Naraynsingh V, Senasi R, Arulampalam T. Freehand-robot-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Initial experience in the Trinidad and Tobago. World J Surg Proced. 2022; 12(1): 1-7
19. Cawich SO, Harnarayan P, Maharaj R, et al. A Survey of Surgical Trainees in Trinidad & Tobago Using a Robotic Laparoscopic Camera Holder. Medical Research Archives. 2022; 10(8): 1-4.