American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2012
Abstract
Objective
We analyzed the content, quality, and accuracy of information provided on hospital web sites about robotic gynecologic surgery.
Study Design
An analysis of hospitals with more than 200 beds from a selection of states was performed. Hospital web sites were analyzed for the content and quality of data regarding robotic-assisted surgery.
Results
Among 432 hospitals, the web sites of 192 (44.4%) contained marketing for robotic gynecologic surgery. Stock images (64.1%) and text (24.0%) derived from the robot manufacturer were frequent. Although most sites reported improved perioperative outcomes, limitations of robotics including cost, complications, and operative time were discussed only 3.7%, 1.6%, and 3.7% of the time, respectively. Only 47.9% of the web sites described a comparison group.
Conclusion
Marketing of robotic gynecologic surgery is widespread. Much of the content is not based on high-quality data, fails to present alternative procedures, and relies on stock text and images.
Topics
PMID 22835493 22835493 DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.050 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.050 Schiavone et al. 2012, Schiavone 2012
Cite this article
Schiavone, M. B., Kuo, E. C., Naumann, R. W., Burke, W. M., Lewin, S. N., Neugut, A. I., Hershman, D. L., Herzog, T. J., & Wright, J. D. (2012). The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecologic surgery by hospitals. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.050
Schiavone MB, Kuo EC, Naumann RW, Burke WM, Lewin SN, Neugut AI, Hershman DL, Herzog TJ, Wright JD. The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecologic surgery by hospitals. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2012. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.050
Schiavone, M. B., et al. "The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecologic surgery by hospitals." American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2012.
Related articles
History of the Discipline · Origins of Restorative Practice
Understanding Restorative Reproductive Medicine
Boyle P, 2025 · J Restorative Reprod Med · Open Access
Recently, editorials have been published in reproductive medical journals that have misunderstood and misrepresented the origin and meaning of “restorative reproductive medicine” (RRM).1,2 This term was first used in 2000 when a group of physicians established the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine (IIRRM, iirrm.org ). I am a founding member and am currently president of the IIRRM. The IIRRM was founded as a secular, not a faith-based organization. We adhere to time-honoured medical principles to understand and treat underlying factors responsible for infertility. We are always seeking to improve our diagnosis and treatment of those factors, the training of clinicians who offer RRM, and the quality of clinical practice of RRM. We believe that in the clinical realm, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is often offered quickly without sufficient efforts first made to help couples conceive naturally. IVF was originally developed to treat patients with bilateral tubal occlusion who could not conceive through sexual intercourse. Most patients who undergo IVF today do not have blocked fallopian tubes. Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) was developed for patients with severe male factor infertility. Most patients who undergo ICSI today do not have severe male factor infertility. Remarkably, the most recent Cochrane review of IVF indicates ongoing uncertainty about whether IVF improves the live birth rate compared to expectant management for previously untreated couples with “unexplained” subfertility.3 I am an active RRM clinician since 1998 and I have treated thousands of couples. When patients present for fertility treatment, I do not ask them what religion, political view, or philosophy they support, because that is irrelevant to people who want a solution for their infertility. If they have a condition that is better treated by IVF, I tell them that at the first appointment. If natural conception is possible with RRM, I explain what is involved and outline the treatment process which can take up to 12 cycles (most often less) to reach a healthy ongoing pregnancy, or a full course of treatment. RRM honours patient autonomy. We do not seek to prohibit patient access to IVF. Patients seek us out. RRM expands their choices and options. Many of my patients were previously seen in fertility clinics that offer IVF. Patients repeatedly tell me they did not receive the same depth of investigation or non-IVF treatment in the IVF clinics. I recently received these comments from patients, “RRM empowered us in our fertility journey. It provided a personalised approach. We are so grateful.” And “even if we didn’t conceive, we’d never regret trying RRM as my health improved immeasurably…” The World Health Organization states that “Infertility is a disease of the male or female reproductive system defined by the failure to achieve a pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse”.4 As RRM physicians, we respectfully suggest a slight but essential alteration: “Infertility is a medical condition defined by failure to achieve a pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular sexual intercourse without contraception, which is caused by one or more underlying diseases and conditions involving the male or female reproductive system.” This definition indicates that infertility is not a singular condition to be treated solely by treatments to generate a pregnancy and birth. Rather, it is “a canary in the coal mine” for human health, indicating the need to identify and address underlying health concerns. 5,6 As RRM physicians and clinicians we have training and backgrounds that allow us to treat infertility patients with a focus on treatments and approaches that restore and optimize natural function. The specialty of reproductive endocrinology and infertility has extensive training with a particular focus on IVF and treatments to improve the success of IVF. But we can and should be in agreement to offer patients evidence-based information and treatments that meet the needs and preferences of patients. Further research is needed and is currently ongoing on patient-relevant questions, such as: How does an RRM evaluation differ in process and results from a fertility evaluation before initiating IVF? How do the outcomes of RRM and IVF compare on multiple levels including live birth rates, premature delivery, patient satisfaction, health improvement, and repeat successful births?7 For the sake of our patients with infertility, let us strive to be objective about the scientific facts, and meet all patients with respect. Surely as we challenge and learn from one another and strive for excellence, the patients will be the ultimate beneficiaries.
Registries and Reporting · Success Rate Reporting
Direct-to-consumer advertising of success rates for medically assisted reproduction: a review of national clinic websites
Wilkinson J et al., 2017 · BMJ Open · Open Access
To establish how medically assisted reproduction (MAR) clinics report success rates on their websites. Websites of private and NHS clinics offering in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in the UK. We identified clinics offering IVF using the Choose a Fertility Clinic facility on the website of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Of 81 clinics identified, a website could not be found for 2, leaving 79 for inclusion in the analysis. PRIMARY Outcome measures reported by clinic websites. The numerator and denominator included in the outcome measure were of interest. 53 (67%) websites reported their performance using 51 different outcome measures. It was most common to report pregnancy (83% of these clinics) or live birth rates (51%). 31 different ways of reporting pregnancy and 9 different ways of reporting live birth were identified. 11 (21%) reported multiple birth or pregnancy rates. 1 clinic provided information on adverse events. It was usual for clinics to present results without relevant contextual information such as sample size, reporting period, the characteristics of patients and particular details of treatments. Many combinations of numerator and denominator are available for the purpose of reporting success rates for MAR. The range of reporting options available to clinics is further increased by the possibility of presenting results for subgroups of patients and for different time periods. Given the status of these websites as advertisements to patients, the risk of selective reporting is considerable. Binding guidance is required to ensure consistent, informative reporting.
Hormone Testing · Serum Panels
Incident endometriosis diagnosis and anti-müllerian hormone (AMH): how surgical staging and typology relate to serum AMH levels
Valenti M et al., 2026 · Am J Obstet Gynecol · Open Access
Endometriosis is a chronic, gynecologic condition in which tissue similar to the lining of the uterus implants throughout the body. Women with endometriosis have a higher prevalence of infertility and a greater risk of early natural menopause compared to those without endometriosis. This study aimed to evaluate preoperative serum AMH levels among women with and without incident endometriosis and to assess whether levels differ by surgical staging and typology. The ENDO (Endometriosis: Natural History, Diagnosis, and Outcomes) study was conducted between 2007 and 2009. The ENDO study consisted of an operative and population cohort (n=600). Only those in the ENDO operative cohort from the Utah site were used for this analysis, and included women aged 18 to 44 years who were scheduled for gynecologic surgery, irrespective of clinical indication (n=476). AMH levels were measured from stored serum collected before surgery using a quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. After excluding participants with missing outcome data (n=51), unilateral oophorectomy (n=8), or those within the population cohort (n=69), 348 participants remained for the analysis. Surgically confirmed endometriosis diagnosis, staging (American Society for Reproductive Medicine I-IV), and typology (superficial, deep, ovarian) were ascertained by the operative report. Outliers for AMH (>14.0 ng/mL) were excluded from the analyses and AMH values were log-transformed. Multivariable linear regression models adjusted for age (squared and continuous), body mass index, serum cotinine levels, and exogenous hormonal contraceptive use were conducted. Percentage differences in AMH were calculated as (exp[β]-1)×100, and 95% confidence intervals were reported. Compared with no endometriosis, incident endometriosis diagnosis was associated with lower AMH levels (-19.8%; 95% confidence interval, -37.0 to 1.0); however, this association was not statistically significant. Stage III to IV disease was associated with 40.1% lower AMH levels (95% confidence interval, -58.9 to -12.7). Ovarian endometriomas were most strongly associated with lower AMH levels (-54.3%; 95% confidence interval, -69.4 to -31.8), with a more pronounced association among those with infertility (-72.6%; 95% confidence interval, -85.4 to -48.5). Deep (-24.1%; 95% confidence interval, -48.2 to 11.0) and superficial (-15.5%; 95% confidence interval, -34.6 to 9.3) endometriosis also showed a trend toward lower AMH levels, but these findings were not statistically significant. Compared with a postoperative diagnosis of a normal pelvis, incident endometriosis was associated with 26.8% lower AMH levels (95% confidence interval, -44.6 to -3.4). Stage III to IV disease was associated with 47.8% lower AMH levels (95% confidence interval, -65.8 to -23.2), and all subtypes of endometriosis were statistically significantly associated with lower levels of AMH compared with a postoperative diagnosis of a normal pelvis (ovarian: -60.8%; 95% confidence interval, -74.4 to -39.9; deep: -34.3%; 95% confidence interval, -56.2 to -1.4; superficial: -24.8%; 95% confidence interval, -43.9 to -0.8). Ovarian and moderate to severe (stage III-IV) endometriosis were associated with markedly lower AMH levels compared with no endometriosis. Compared with a postoperative diagnosis of a normal pelvis, incident endometriosis and moderate to severe stages (stage III-IV) were associated with statistically significantly lower AMH levels. Additionally, typology (deep, ovarian, or superficial) was associated with statistically significantly lower AMH levels. However, this association was likely driven by the presence of ovarian endometriomas across all subtypes. These findings are consistent with previous studies and demonstrate that endometriosis lesions themselves, independent of surgical intervention, influence AMH levels.
Uterine Surgery · Cesarean Scar Repair
"Uterine closure after cesarean delivery: surgical technique, biological rationale, and clinical implications."
Bujold E et al., 2026 · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · Open Access
Normal uterine function depends on cyclical regeneration and the capacity to sustain pregnancy. A cesarean incision represents an injury to this remarkable organ. Although the uterus possesses exceptional healing potential, cesarean delivery increases the risk of secondary infertility, pelvic pain, uterine rupture, and abnormal placentation in subsequent pregnancies. The two most important determinants of successful hysterotomy healing after cesarean delivery are the location of the incision and the surgical technique used for closure. The anatomic site of entry-whether the corpus, lower uterine segment, or cervix-defines the tissue composition, vascularity, and contractility at the wound margins, which in turn influence how the scar remodels and withstands subsequent pregnancies. Surgical technique is also important. A robust body of experimental and clinical evidence demonstrates that restoring anatomic integrity by reapproximating uterine layers while excluding the endometrium produces stronger scars and reduces late complications. The rationale for excluding the endometrium is to prevent displacement of endometrial tissue into the myometrium and to avoid mucosal tearing against a foreign body (i.e. suture material), both of which predispose to defective healing. When the endometrium is incorporated, healing is often impaired, leading to niches or isthmoceles, adenomyosis, and endometriosis at the scar site. Over time, these defects have been recognized as contributors to abnormal bleeding, pelvic pain, infertility, uterine rupture, and placenta accreta spectrum disorders. Despite this evidence, single-layer closures that incorporate endometrium became widely adopted because of their speed and simplicity, while their long-term sequels were initially underappreciated. This has prompted renewed scrutiny of closure techniques, including comparisons of single-layer vs double-layer closure, locking vs nonlocking sutures, type of sutures, and the direction of suture. Collectively, the data show that optimal closure respects uterine anatomy, restores the natural alignment of tissues, and achieves hemostasis without compromising perfusion or strangulating tissues. Building on these principles, we herein describe a refined 3-layer closure. The first layer approximates decidua and junctional myometrium while excluding surface endometrium to prevent tissue entrapment and bacterial contamination. The second layer restores anatomic wall integrity by reapproximating the bulk of the myometrium, thereby reinforcing strength and distributing tension across the scar. The third layer reapproximates superficial myometrium and serosa, smoothing the uterine surface and reducing adhesions. This technique is not simply a return to traditional double-layer methods or an extension of single-layer practice, but rather a refinement that integrates lessons from visceral surgery and contemporary obstetric data. Its rationale is to restore anatomy, secure hemostasis without ischemia, and preserve long-term uterine function. While short-term safety appears comparable across closure methods, evidence increasingly indicates that long-term reproductive outcomes depend on how closure respects tissue biology. We argue that appropriate repair is more important than a fast repair: meticulous restoration of uterine anatomy should take precedence over operative speed. The enduring success of a hysterotomy repair depends on the surgical technique employed, as it directly affects women's future reproductive health.