Search

Introduction: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) has become a widely used technology in urology. Urological procedures that are now being routinely performed robotically are: radical prostatectomy (RP), radical cystectomy (RC), renal procedures – mainly partial nephrectomy (PN), and pyeloplasty, as well as ureteric re-implantation and adrenalectomy. Methods: This non-systematic review of the literature examines the effectiveness of RALS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for the most relevant urological procedures. Results: For robot-assisted RP there seems to be an advantage in terms of continence and potency over laparoscopy. Robot-assisted RC seems equal in terms of oncological outcome but with lower complication rates; however, the effect of intracorporeal urinary diversion has hardly been examined. Robotic PN has proven safe and is most likely superior to conventional laparoscopy, whereas there does not seem to be a real advantage for the robot in radical nephrectomy. For reconstructive procedures, e.g. pyeloplasty and ureteric re-implantation, there seems to be advantages in terms of operating time. Conclusions: We found substantial, albeit mostly low-quality evidence, that robotic operations can have better outcomes than procedures performed laparoscopically. However, in light of the significant costs and because high-quality data from prospective randomised trials are still missing, conventional urological laparoscopy is certainly not ‘dead’ yet. Keywords: Robotic urological surgery, Robotic, Laparoscopic, Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

Objectives: To evaluate the recent developments in robotic urological surgery, as the introduction of robotic technology has overcome many of the difficulties of pure laparoscopic surgery enabling surgeons to perform complex minimally invasive procedures with a shorter learning curve. Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) is now offered as the standard for various surgical procedures across multiple specialities. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE databases was performed to identify studies evaluating robot-assisted simple prostatectomy, salvage radical prostatectomy, surgery for urolithiasis, distal ureteric reconstruction, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, augmentation ileocystoplasty, and artificial urinary sphincter insertion. Article titles, abstracts, and full text manuscripts were screened to identify relevant studies, which then underwent data extraction and analysis. Results: In all, 72 studies evaluating the above techniques were identified. Almost all studies were retrospective single-arm case series. RAS appears to be associated with reduced morbidity, less blood loss, reduced length of stay, and comparable clinical outcomes in comparison to the corresponding open procedures, whilst having a shorter operative duration and learning curve compared to the equivalent laparoscopic techniques. Conclusion: Emerging data demonstrate that the breadth and complexity of urological procedures performed using the da Vinci® platform (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is continually expanding. There is a gaining consensus that RAS is producing promising surgical results in a wide range of procedures. A major limitation of the current literature is the sparsity of comparative trials evaluating these procedures. Keywords: Robot-assisted surgery, Robotic surgery, Urology

Objectives: To review the main complications related to the robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) approach in urology and to suggest measures to avoid such issues. Methods: A systematic search for articles of the contemporary literature was performed in PubMed database for complications in RAL urological procedures focused on positioning, access, and operative technique considerations. Each complication topic is followed by recommendations about how to avoid it. Results: In all, 40 of 253 articles were included in this analysis. Several complications in RAL procedures can be avoided if the surgical team follows some key steps. Adequate patient positioning must avoid skin, peripheral nerve, and muscles injuries, and ocular and cognitive complications mainly related to steep Trendelenburg positioning in pelvic procedures. Port-site access and closure should not be neglected during minimally invasive procedures as these complications although rare can be troublesome. Technique-related complications depend on surgeon experience and the early learning curve should be monitored. Conclusions: Adequate patient selection, surgical positioning, mentorship training, and avoiding long-lasting procedures are essential to prevent RAL-related complications. The robotic surgical team must be careful and work together to avoid possible complications. This review offers several steps in surgical planning to reach this goal. Keywords: Surgical complications, Robotic surgery, Minimally invasive surgery, Radical prostatectomy