Cargando…

The age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead?

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 pyelopla...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schwaibold, Hartwig, Wiesend, Felix, Bach, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30140462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2018.07.003
_version_ 1783349529749225472
author Schwaibold, Hartwig
Wiesend, Felix
Bach, Christian
author_facet Schwaibold, Hartwig
Wiesend, Felix
Bach, Christian
author_sort Schwaibold, Hartwig
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6104663
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61046632018-08-23 The age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead? Schwaibold, Hartwig Wiesend, Felix Bach, Christian Arab J Urol Setting the Scene 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. Elsevier 2018-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6104663/ /pubmed/30140462 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2018.07.003 Text en © 2018 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Arab Association of Urology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Setting the Scene
Schwaibold, Hartwig
Wiesend, Felix
Bach, Christian
The age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead?
title The age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead?
title_full The age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead?
title_fullStr The age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead?
title_full_unstemmed The age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead?
title_short The age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead?
title_sort age of robotic surgery – is laparoscopy dead?
topic Setting the Scene
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6104663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30140462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2018.07.003
work_keys_str_mv AT schwaiboldhartwig theageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead
AT wiesendfelix theageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead
AT bachchristian theageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead
AT schwaiboldhartwig ageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead
AT wiesendfelix ageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead
AT bachchristian ageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead