The age of robotic surgery - Is laparoscopy dead?
- PMID: 30140462
- PMCID: PMC6104663
- DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2018.07.003
The age of robotic surgery - Is laparoscopy dead?
Abstract
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: (RA)PN, (robot-assisted) partial nephrectomy; (RA)RN, (robot-assisted) radical nephrectomy; (RA)RP, (robot-assisted) radical prostatectomy; (RA-)RPLND, (robot-assisted) retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (RA)RC, (robot-assisted) radical cystectomy; 3D, three-dimensional; EAU, European Association of Urology; ICG, indocyanine green; IVC, inferior vena cava; Laparoscopic; NSGCT, non-seminomatous germ cell tumour; PSM, positive surgical margin; RAIL, robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy; RALS, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery; RALUR, robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteric re-implantation; Robotic; Robotic urological surgery; Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy; WIT, warm ischaemia time; dVSS, da Vinci Surgical System.
Similar articles
-
Expanding the indications of robotic surgery in urology: A systematic review of the literature.Arab J Urol. 2018 Aug 7;16(3):270-284. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2018.05.005. eCollection 2018 Sep. Arab J Urol. 2018. PMID: 30147957 Free PMC article. Review.
-
EAU guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology.Eur Urol. 2013 Aug;64(2):277-91. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.034. Epub 2013 May 25. Eur Urol. 2013. PMID: 23764016 Review.
-
Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis.Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10(27):1-118. Epub 2010 Dec 1. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010. PMID: 23074405 Free PMC article.
-
Contemporary National Assessment of Robot-Assisted Surgery Rates and Total Hospital Charges for Major Surgical Uro-Oncological Procedures in the United States.J Endourol. 2019 Jun;33(6):438-447. doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0840. J Endourol. 2019. PMID: 30931607
-
Robot-assisted urological surgery in the Middle East: Where are we and how far can we go?Arab J Urol. 2019 Apr 23;17(2):106-113. doi: 10.1080/2090598X.2019.1601003. eCollection 2019. Arab J Urol. 2019. PMID: 31285921 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic adrenalectomy: a large international multicenter experience.Surg Endosc. 2021 Apr;35(4):1801-1807. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-07578-5. Epub 2020 Apr 23. Surg Endosc. 2021. PMID: 32328826
-
Robot‑assisted laparoscopic partial cystectomy for urachal carcinoma: A case report.Oncol Lett. 2025 Apr 1;29(5):257. doi: 10.3892/ol.2025.15003. eCollection 2025 May. Oncol Lett. 2025. PMID: 40213090 Free PMC article.
-
Role of laparoscopy in the era of robotic surgery in urology in developing countries.Indian J Urol. 2021 Jan-Mar;37(1):32-41. doi: 10.4103/iju.IJU_252_20. Epub 2021 Jan 1. Indian J Urol. 2021. PMID: 33850353 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Yaxley J.W., Coughlin G.D., Chambers S.K., Occhipinti S., Samaratunga H., Zajdlewicz L. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;388:1057–1066. - PubMed
-
- Hu J.C., Gu X., Lipsitz S.R., Barry M.J., D'Amico A.V., Weinberg A.C. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302:1557–1564. - PubMed
-
- Yossepowitch O., Briganti A., Eastham J.A., Epstein J., Graefen M., Montironi R. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol. 2014;65:303–313. - PubMed
-
- Montorsi F., Wilson T.G., Rosen R.C., Ahlering T.E., Artibani W., Carroll P.R. Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol. 2012;62:368–381. - PubMed
-
- Ploussard G., de la Taille A., Moulin M., Vordos D., Hoznek A., Abbou C.C. Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014;65:610–619. - PubMed
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous