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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |