FreeHand Robot-Assisted Gynecologic Surgery in Trinidad & Tobago: Case Reports

Main Article Content

Gordon Narayansingh Shamir O Cawich Tan Arulampalam Ahsanul Haq Ramdas Sensai


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

How to Cite
NARAYANSINGH, Gordon et al. FreeHand Robot-Assisted Gynecologic Surgery in Trinidad & Tobago: Case Reports. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 10, n. 11, nov. 2022. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 17 june 2024. doi:
Case Reports


1. Naraynsingh V, Bahadursingh S, Maharaj R, Harnarayan P, Cawich SO. Surgery in the West Indies: A Perspective from Trinidad. Current Med Res Prac. 2014; 4: 126-129.
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.