The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Volume 17, Issue 5 , Pages 583-586 , September 2010

Variance in Abdominal Wall Anatomy and Port Placement in Women Undergoing Robotic Gynecologic Surgery

Presented at the 38th Annual American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, Orlando, Florida, November 15–19, 2009.

  • Catherine A. Matthews, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Catherine A. Matthews, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center,1250 E. Marshall St. Box 980034, Richmond, VA 23298.
    • ,
  • Christine M. Schubert, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond
    • ,
  • Ashley P. Woodward, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond
    • ,
  • Edward J. Gill, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond

Received 6 December 2009 ,Accepted 23 April 2010.

References 

  1. Muhe E. Long-term follow-up after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Endoscopy. 1992;24:754–758
  2. Ambardar S, Cabot J, Cekic V, et al. Abdominal wall dimensions and umbilical position vary widely with BMI and should be taken into account when choosing port locations. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1995–2000
  3. Hurd WW, Bude RO, DeLancey JO, Pearl ML. The relationship of the umbilicus to the aortic bifurcation: implications for laparoscopic technique. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80:48–51
  4. Nezhat F, Brill AI, Nezhat CH, Nezhat A, Seidman DS, Nezhat C. Laparoscopic appraisal of the anatomic relationship of the umbilicus to the aortic bifurcation. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998;5:135–140
  5. Eun D, Bhandari A, Boris R, Rogers C, Bhandari M, Menon M. Concurrent upper and lower urinary tract robotic surgery: strategies for success. BJU Int. 2007;100:1121–1125
  6. Hemal AK, Eun D, Tewari A, Menon M. Nuances in the optimum placement of ports in pelvic and upper urinary tract surgery using the da Vinci robot. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31:683–692
  7. Advincula AP, Wang K. Evolving role and current state of robotics in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:291–301
  8. Neter JWW, Kutner MH. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.; 1974;888–890
  9. Baragi RV, Delancey JO, Caspari R, Howard DH, Ashton-Miller JA. Differences in pelvic floor area between African American and European American women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:111–115
  10. Hoyte L, Thomas J, Foster RT, Shott S, Jakab M, Weidner AC. Racial differences in pelvic morphology among asymptomatic nulliparous women as seen on three-dimensional magnetic resonance images. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:2035–2040
  11. Handa VL, Lockhart ME, Fielding JR, et al. Racial differences in pelvic anatomy by magnetic resonance imaging. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:914–920
  12. Rizk DE, Czechowski J, Ekelund L. Dynamic assessment of pelvic floor and bony pelvis morphologic condition with the use of magnetic resonance imaging in a multiethnic, nulliparous, and healthy female population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:83–89

 The authors have no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

PII: S1553-4650(10)00228-1

doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.04.008

The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Volume 17, Issue 5 , Pages 583-586 , September 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution