Evolution of robotic technology in urologic surgery
Authors:
N. Singla; A. K. Singla
Authors‘ workplace:
Department of Urology 3000 Arlington Avenue, MS1091 University of Toledo Medical Center
Published in:
Urol List 2014; 12(3): 13-16
Overview
Over the last 25 years, the field of urology has seen the advent and evolution of minimally invasive surgical techniques. The robot in particular has been shown to be safe and efficacious in managing malignancies. More recently its application has been expanded to benign urological conditions. While some robotic applications have been well established, others remain at varying stages of evolution. Relative to open approaches, the robot has been shown to enhance intraoperative visualization and precision, mitigate surgeon tremor, hasten post‑operative recovery, and shorten length of hospital stay for certain indications; however, it has also been associated with higher costs, longer operative times, and limited outcomes data. We review the evolution of robotic applications within urology and speculate on the future directions and implications within the field.
Key words:
robot, urology, benign indication, malign indication
Sources
1. Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA et al. A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1988; 35(2): 153– 160.
2. Davies BL, Hibberd RD, Coptcoat MJ et al. A surgeon robot prostatectomy – a laboratory evaluation. J Med Eng Technol 1989; 13(6): 273– 277.
3. Unger SW, Unger HM, Bass RT. AESOP robotic arm. Surg Endosc 1994; 8(9): 1131.
4. Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Adams JB et al. Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control. J Urol 1995; 154(6): 2134– 2136.
5. Himpens J, Leman G, Cadiere GB. Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1998; 12(8): 1091.
6. Lee Z, Sehgal SS, Lee DI. Robotika v urologii: začínáme. Urol List 2014; 12(1): 32– 36.
7. Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically‑ assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001; 87(4): 408– 410.
8. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2009; 302(14): 1557– 1564. doi: 10.1001/ jama.2009.1451.
9. Su LM. Robot‑ assisted radical prostatectomy: advances since 2005. Curr Opin Urol 2010; 20(2): 130– 135. doi: 10.1097/ MOU.0b013e328336257a.
10. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 2003; 169(6): 2289– 2292.
11. Kaul S, Bhandari A, Hemal A et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy with preservation of the prostatic fascia: a feasibility study. Urology 2005; 66(6): 1261– 1265.
12. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Bhandari M et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol 2009; 56(1): 89– 96. doi: 10.1016/ j.eururo.2009.04.032.
13. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot‑ assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009; 55(5): 1037– 1063. doi: 10.1016/ j.eururo.2009.01.036.
14. Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Rocco B et al. Early complication rates in a single‑surgeon series of 2500 robotic‑ assisted radical prostatectomies: report applying a standardized grading system. Eur Urol 2010; 57(6): 945– 952. doi: 10.1016/ j.eururo.2010.02.001.
15. La Rochelle J, Shuch B, Riggs S et al. Functional and oncological outcomes of partial nephrectomy of solitary kidneys. J Urol 2009; 181(5): 2037– 2042, discussion: 2043. doi: 10.1016/ j.juro.2009.01.024.
16. Gettman MT, Blute ML, Chow GK et al. Robotic‑ assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: technique and initial clinical experience with DaVinci robotic system. Urology 2004; 64(5): 914– 918.
17. Scoll BJ, Uzzo RG, Chen DY et al. Robot‑ assisted partial nephrectomy: a large single‑institutional experience. Urology 2010; 75(6): 1328– 1334. doi: 10.1016/ j.urology.2009.10.040.
18. Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG et al. Robot‑ assisted partial nephrectomy: an international experience. Eur Urol 2010; 57(5): 815– 820. doi: 10.1016/ j.eururo.2010.01.011.
19. Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A et al. Nerve‑ sparing robot‑ assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int 2003; 92(3): 232– 236.
20. Beecken WD, Wolfram M, Engl T et al. Robotic‑ assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy and intra‑ abdominal formation of an orthotopic ileal neobladder. Eur Urol 2003; 44(3): 337– 339.
21. Ng CK, Kauffman EC, Lee MM et al. A comparison of postoperative complications in open versus robotic cystectomy. Eur Urol 2010; 57(2): 274– 281. doi: 10.1016/ j.eururo.2009.06.001.
22. Pruthi RS, Wallen EM. Is robotic radical cystectomy an appropriate treatment for bladder cancer? Short‑term oncologic and clinical follow‑up in 50 consecutive patients. Urology 2008; 72(3): 617– 620, discussion: 620– 622. doi: 10.1016/ j.urology.2008.04.066.
23. Pruthi RS, Nielsen ME, Nix J et al. Robotic radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: surgical and pathological outcomes in 100 consecutive cases. J Urol 2010; 183(2): 510– 515. doi: 10.1016/ j.juro.2009.10.027.
24. Nunez‑ Mora C, García‑ Mediero JM, Cabrera-‑ Castillo PM. Radical laparoscopic salvage prostatectomy: medium‑term functional and oncological results. J Endourol 2009; 23(8): 1301– 1305. doi: 10.1089/ end.2009.0019.
25. Hubert J, Chammas M, Larre S et al. Initial experience with successful totally robotic laparoscopic cystoprostatectomy and ileal conduit construction in tetraplegic patients: report of two cases. J Endourol 2006; 20(2): 139– 143.
26. Balaji KC, Yohannes P, McBride CL et al. Feasibility of robot‑ assisted totally intracorporeal laparoscopic ileal conduit urinary diversion: initial results of a single institutional pilot study. Urology 2004; 63(1): 51– 55.
27. Kavoussi LR, Moore RG, Partin AW et al. Telerobotic assisted laparoscopic surgery: initial laboratory and clinical experience. Urology 1994; 44(1): 15– 19.
28. Guillonneau B, Jayet C, Tewari A et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Urol 2001; 166(1): 200– 201.
29. Rose K, Khan S, Dasgupta P. The current status of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Int J Clin Pract 2006; 60(1): 6– 8.
30. Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R et al. A comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard laparoscopic techniques: initial clinical results. Eur Urol 2002; 42(5): 453– 457, discussion: 457– 458.
31. Bentas W, Wolfram M, Bräutigam R et al. Da Vinci robot assisted Anderson‑ Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and 1 year follow‑up. World J Urol 2003; 21(3): 133– 138.
32. Patel V. Robotic‑ assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology 2005; 66(1): 45– 49.
33. Peters CA. Robotically assisted surgery in pediatric urology. Urol Clin North Am 2004; 31(4): 743– 752.
34. Gregory WT, Nygaard I. Childbirth and pelvic floor disorders. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004; 47(2): 394– 403.
35. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM et al. Short‑term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112(6): 1201– 1206. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0b013e31818ce394.
36. Gagner M, Lacroix A, Bolté E. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy in Cushing’s syndrome and pheochromocytoma. N Engl J Med 1992; 327(14): 1033.
37. Horgan S, Vanuno D. Robots in laparoscopic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2001; 11(6): 415– 419.
38. Brunaud L, Ayav A, Zarnegar R et al. Prospective evaluation of 100 robotic‑ assisted unilateral adrenalectomies. Surgery 2008; 144(6): 995– 1001, discussion: 1001. doi: 10.1016/ j.surg.2008.08.032.
39. Morino M, Beninca G, Giraudo G et al. Robot‑ assisted vs laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2004; 18(12): 1742– 1746.
40. Hemal AK, Kolla SB, Wadhwa P. Robotic reconstruction for recurrent supratrigonal vesicovaginal fistulas. J Urol 2008; 180(3): 981– 985. doi: 10.1016/ j.juro.2008.05.020.
41. Fleming C. Robot‑ assisted vasovasostomy. Urol Clin North Am 2004; 31(4): 769– 772.
Labels
Paediatric urologist UrologyArticle was published in
Urological Journal
2014 Issue 3
Most read in this issue
- EAU – LUTS treatment should be predominantly based on combination therapy
- Anterior vaginal wall suspension – description of the technique
- Evidence based management of catheter-associated urinary tract infections
- Radical surgery and radiotherapy – purpose and results of these treatment options in patients with higher stage prostate cancer