Search

Introduction: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), robot-assisted (RA), and retroperitoneoscopic (R) surgery expand the armamentarium of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). As information on the use of these surgical approaches in daily routine is limited, we conducted a survey among German urologists. Materials and Methods: In 2017, all urology departments in Germany received a questionnaire evaluating practice patterns of MIS in the retroperitoneum. Chi-Square test was performed for statistical analyses. The response rate was 51.1% (162/311) including 23 universities. Results: R adrenalectomy and (partial) nephrectomy are performed by 32.7–40.1% of all departments. Transperitoneal LESS adrenalectomy and nephrectomy are performed by 8.6–11.7%. Retroperitoneal RA adrenalectomy and (partial) nephrectomy are performed by 6.2–13.0%. There was no difference in the R and LESS approach between (non)-university departments. Retroperitoneal RA access is more frequently used in university hospitals (all p < 0.01). If performed, mean counts within the last 12 months were < 5 for R, LESS, and RA adrenalectomy; and < 20 for R, LESS, and RA (partial) nephrectomy. Conclusion: Our survey provides a detailed insight into MIS in the retroperitoneum in German urology departments. Numbers of adrenalectomies as well as R, transperitoneal LESS and retroperitoneal RA procedures are low. Retroperitoneal RA surgery is more common in universities. Comprehensively, our survey proves that these approaches are not standard approaches yet. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) is being widely accepted in the field of urology as a replacement for conventional laparoscopy (CL). Nevertheless, the process of its integration in clinical routines has been rather spontaneous. Objective: To determine the prevalence of robotic systems (RS) in urological clinics in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the acceptance of RAL among urologists as a replacement for CL and its current use for 25 different urological indications. Materials and Methods: To elucidate the practice patterns of RAL, a survey at hospitals in Germany, Austria and Switzerland was conducted. All surgically active urology departments in Germany (303), Austria (37) and Switzerland (84) received a questionnaire with questions related to the one-year period prior to the survey. Results: The response rate was 63%. Among the participants, 43% were universities, 45% were tertiary care centres, and 8% were secondary care hospitals. A total of 60 RS (Germany 35, Austria 8, Switzerland 17) were available, and the majority (68%) were operated under public ownership. The perception of RAL and the anticipated superiority of RAL significantly differed between robotic and non-robotic surgeons. For only two urologic indications were more than 50% of the procedures performed using RAL: pyeloplasty (58%) and transperitoneal radical prostatectomy (75%). On average, 35% of robotic surgeons and only 14% of non-robotic surgeons anticipated RAL superiority in some of the 25 indications. Conclusions: This survey provides a detailed insight into RAL implementation in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. RAL is currently limited to a few urological indications with a small number of high-volume robotic centres. These results might suggest that a saturation of clinics using RS has been achieved but that the existing robotic capacities are being utilized ineffectively. The possible reasons for this finding are discussed, and certain strategies to solve these problems are offered. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]