Robotic Gynecologic Surgery: What it Means for Women

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to improve the understanding of the experiences of women undergoing gynecologic robotic surgery.

Method: A qualitative descriptive phenomenologic approach was used. We conducted phone interviews with women who had undergone a gynecological procedure via robotic surgery in a gynecology clinic of a university hospital (n=19). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with women, and data were analyzed using Colaizzi’s methods.

Results: Two major themes were identified. These two themes concerned: (1) Ambivalent Feelings on Robotic Surgery, and (2) Robotic Surgery was a Piece of Cake.

Conclusion: Because of the newness of this procedure, the women in this study indicated that they had concerns and lacked information about robotic gynecologic surgery but that their decision was influenced by the confidence they had in their physicians. The women indicated that they had confidence in the robotic technique and recovered quickly physically.

Keywords

• Qualitative research
• Patient education
• Patient experience
• Phenomenology
• Robotic gynecologic surgery

Jinekolojik Robotik Cerrahi: Kadınlar İçin Anlamı

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma ile, jinekolojik robotik cerrahi ile ameliyat olan kadınların robotik cerrahi ile ameliyat olma kararı, bu ameliyat şeklinin kadına ne hissettirdiği ve ameliyat sonrası deneyimlerini derinlemesine incelemek amaçlanmıştır.
Yöntem: Çalışmada nitel fenomenolojik yaklaşım kullanılmıştır. Araştırma kapsamında jinekolojik robotik cerrahi operasyonu geçiren 19 kadın ile görüşülmüştür. Kadınlar ile telefon görüşmesi yapılmış ve veriler yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu ile toplanmıştır. Görüşmeler sonucu elde edilen verilerin değerlendirmesinde Colaizzi’nin fenomenolojik yorumlama metodu kullanılmıştır.
Bulgular: Çalışmada (1) Robotik Cerrahiye İlişkin Ambivalans Duygular ve (2) Robotik Cerrahi Çok Kolaydı olmak üzere iki ana tema tanımlanmıştır.
Sonuç: Kadınlar, robotik cerrahinin yeni bir uygulama olması ve daha önce duymamış olmaları nedeniyle kaygı ve anksiyete yaşadıklarını ifade etmiştir. Ancak kadınların tamamı doktorlarına duydukları güvenin bu kaygıyı azalttığını ve robotik cerrahi ile operasyonu kabul etmelerinde etkili olduğunu belirtmiştir. Kadınlar, robotik cerrahi sonrası kendilerini fiziksel olarak çok iyi hissettiklerini ve güven duyduklarını bildirmiştir.

Keywords

• Nitel araştırma
• Hasta eğitimi
• Hasta deneyimi
• Fenomenoloji
• Robotik jinekolojik cerrahi

References

1. Best J, Day L, Ingram L, Musgrave B, Rushing H, & Schooley B. Comparison of robotic vs. standard surgical procedure on postoperative nursing care of women undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy. Medsurg Nurs. 2014; 23(6):414-422.
2. Kurt G, Loerzel V.W, Hines R.B, Tavasci K, Galura S, Ahmad S, et al. Learning needs of women undergoing robotic versus open gynecologic surgeries. JOGNN. 2018;47(4):490-497. doi.org/10.1016/j.jogn.2018.04.133
3. Madhuri T. K, & Butler-Manuel S. Robotic surgery in gynaecology/gynaecological oncology. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2017;27(2):65-67.
4. Lenihan J. P. How to set up a robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery centre and training of staff. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;45:19-31. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2017.05.004
5. Madueke-Laveaux O. S, & Advincula A. P. Robot-assisted laparoscopy in benign gynecology: Advantageous device or controversial gimmick?. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;45:2-6. doi.org/10.1016/j.ogrm.2017.01.002
6. Zanagnolo V, Garbi A, Achilarre M. T, & Minig L. Robot-assisted surgery in gynecologic cancers. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(3):379-396. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.01.006
7. ElSahwi K.S, Hooper C, De Leon M.C, Gallo T.N, Ratner E, Silasi D.A, et. al. Comparison between 155 cases of robotic vs. 150 cases of open surgical staging for endometrial cancer. Gynecol Onco. 2012;124(2012):260-264. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.09.038
8. Gala R.B, Margulies R, Steinberg A, Murphy M, Lukban J, Jeppson P, et. al. Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(3):353-361. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010

9. Abitbol J, Lau S, Ramanakumar A.V, Press J.Z, Drummond N, Rosberger Z, et. al. Prospective quality of life outcomes following robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;134(1):144-149. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.04.052
10. Martino M.A, Shubella J, Thomas M.B, Morcrette R.M, Schindler J, Williams S, et al. A cost analysis of postoperative management in endometrial cancer patients treated by robotics versus laparoscopic approach. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123:28–531. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.08.021
11. Reza M, Maeso S, Blasco J.A, Andradas E. Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1772–1783. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7269
12. Lau S, Aubin S, Rosberger Z, Gourdji I, How J, Gotlieb R, et. al. Health-related quality of life following robotic surgery: a pilot study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014;36(12):1071-1078. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30384-4
13. Herling S.F, Palle C, Moeller A.M, & Thomsen T. The experience of robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy for women treated for early-stage endometrial cancer: a qualitative study. Cancer Nurs. 2016;39(2):125-133. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000260
14. Yıldırım A, & Simsek H. Nitel araştırmada geçerlik ve güvenirlik (Validity and Reliability of Qualitative Research), Sosyal bilimlerde niteliksel araştırma yöntemleri (Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences). Seckin Publishing; Ankara, Turkey, 2006, pp. 255-73.
15. Colaizzi P. Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. Valle & M. King (ed). Existential phenomenological alternative for psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pp. 48–71.
16. Sinha R, Sanjay M, Rupa B, Kumari S. Robotic surgery in gynecology. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11(1):50–59. doi: 10.4103/0972-9941.147690
17. Lauterbach R, Matanes E, Lowenstein L. Review of robotic surgery in gynecology—the future is here. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2017;8(2):e0019. doi:10.5041/RMMJ.10296
18. Sait K.H. Early experience with the da Vinci® surgical system robot in gynecological surgery at King Abdulaziz University Hospital. Int J Womens Health. 2011;3:219–226. doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S23046
19. Goetgheluck J, Carbonnel M, Ayoubi J.M. Robotically assisted gynecologic surgery: 2-year experience in the French Foch hospital. Front Surg. 2014;1(8):1-5. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2014.00008
20. Weissman J.S, & Zinner M. Comparative Effectiveness Research on Robotic Surgery. JAMA. 2013;309(7):721-722.