Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2010 Aug;10(4):421-32.
doi: 10.1586/erp.10.46.

Robotic surgery in urologic oncology: gathering the evidence

Affiliations
Review

Robotic surgery in urologic oncology: gathering the evidence

Ted A Skolarus et al. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010 Aug.

Abstract

In less than a decade, the widespread application of robotic technology to the field of urologic oncology has permanently altered the way urologists approach malignancy. The short-term benefits of minimally invasive surgery using robotic assistance (i.e., decreased blood loss, improved convalescence and ergonomic appeal), as well as a broad marketing campaign, have helped the technology gain traction in the field of urology. Although the long-term benefits of its use in urologic surgery are less clear and the costs of robotic surgery are consistently greater than those of other approaches, the numbers of prostate, kidney and bladder cancer cases continue to rise. Identifying transferable surgical processes of care that matter most for each of the robotic cases in urologic oncology (e.g., prostatectomy, cystectomy and partial nephrectomy) is a next step toward broadly improving the quality of urologic cancer care. To this end, urologic professional societies and their surgeons should aim to identify underwriters for and participate in large clinical registries and surgical quality collaboratives.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bagrodia A, Raman J. Ergonomics considerations of radical prostatectomy: physician perspective of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques. J Endourol. 2009;23(4):627–633. - PubMed
    1. Lotan Y. Economics of robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20(1):92–97. - PubMed
    1. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1557–1564. Population-based study comparing minimally invasive radical prostatectomy to open radical prostatectomy. - PubMed
    1. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol. 1991;146(2):278–282. - PubMed
    1. Blute ML. Radical prostatectomy by open or laparoscopic/robotic techniques: an issue of surgical device or surgical expertise? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(14):2248–2249. - PubMed

Websites

    1. Hospital and Surgeon Locator. Intuitive Surgical. [Accessed 2 February 2010]. www.intuitivesurgical.com/patientresources/hospitals_doctors/index.aspx.
    1. da Vinci Prostatectomy. [Accessed 10 May 2010]. www.davinciprostatectomy.com/index.aspx.
    1. Intuitive Surgical. Marketing resources for physicians and hospitals. [Accessed 14 May 2010]. www.intuitivesurgical.com/clinical/marketing/index.aspx.
    1. Results Unproven, Robotic Surgery Wins Converts. New York Times; [Accessed 15 February 2010]. online edition www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/health/14robot.html?hpw.
    1. Intuitive Surgical. [Accessed 2 February 2010]. www.intuitivesurgical.com.

Publication types

MeSH terms