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

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Hartwig Schwaibold, Felix Wiesend, Christian Bach
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Taylor & Francis Group 2018
Materias:	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/45297711c3d645d3a0d23c021c965a16
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:45297711c3d645d3a0d23c021c965a16
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:45297711c3d645d3a0d23c021c965a162021-12-02T13:03:32ZThe age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead?2090-598X10.1016/j.aju.2018.07.003https://doaj.org/article/45297711c3d645d3a0d23c021c965a162018-09-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090598X18300706https://doaj.org/toc/2090-598XIntroduction: 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 prostatectomyHartwig SchwaiboldFelix WiesendChristian BachTaylor & Francis GrouparticleDiseases of the genitourinary system. UrologyRC870-923ENArab Journal of Urology, Vol 16, Iss 3, Pp 262-269 (2018)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923
spellingShingle	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923 Hartwig Schwaibold Felix Wiesend Christian Bach The age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead?
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. Keywords: Robotic urological surgery, Robotic, Laparoscopic, Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
format	article
author	Hartwig Schwaibold Felix Wiesend Christian Bach
author_facet	Hartwig Schwaibold Felix Wiesend Christian Bach
author_sort	Hartwig Schwaibold
title	The age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead?
title_short	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_sort	age of robotic surgery – is laparoscopy dead?
publisher	Taylor & Francis Group
publishDate	2018
url	https://doaj.org/article/45297711c3d645d3a0d23c021c965a16
work_keys_str_mv	AT hartwigschwaibold theageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead AT felixwiesend theageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead AT christianbach theageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead AT hartwigschwaibold ageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead AT felixwiesend ageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead AT christianbach ageofroboticsurgeryislaparoscopydead
_version_	1718393500021555200

The age of robotic surgery – Is laparoscopy dead?

Ejemplares similares