Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 3/2016

01-03-2016 | Urosurgery (J Collins, Section Editor)

Novel Technologies in Urologic Surgery: a Rapidly Changing Scenario

Authors: Giorgio Gandaglia, Peter Schatteman, Geert De Naeyer, Frederiek D’Hondt, Alexandre Mottrie

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

The introduction of laparoscopy and robotic surgery revolutionized the surgical management of urologic patients. Nonetheless, we live in an era of rapid changes, and we are probably still in the infancy of technology applied to surgery. When considering currently available technologies, there are several unmet needs to be addressed. These include the application of augmented reality, haptic feedback, tissue recognition, distant remote control, miniaturization of surgical instruments, the learning curve typical of the introduction of novel techniques, and excessive costs. In the next few years, evolution in imaging modalities in pre- and intraoperative surgical planning, as well as the introduction of novel minimally invasive platforms, would in part address these issues, substantially improving surgical outcomes. In addition, validated training programs would allow for the safe implementation of novel techniques in the clinical practice. Finally, a reduction in costs would be necessary to make technology affordable and to optimize healthcare resources.
Literature
1.
Cathelineau X, Sanchez-Salas R, Sivaraman A. What is next in robotic urology? Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15:460.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Sivaraman A, Sanchez-Salas R, Prapotnich D, et al. Robotics in urological surgery: evolution, current status and future perspectives. Actas Urol Esp. 2015;39:435–41.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy: initial case report. J Urol. 1991;146:278–82.PubMed
5.
Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67:913–24.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Poon SA, Silberstein JL, Chen LY, Ehdaie B, Kim PH, Russo P. Trends in partial and radical nephrectomy: an analysis of case logs from certifying urologists. J Urol. 2013;190:464–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
Abbou CC, Salomon L, Hoznek A, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Urology. 2000;55:630–4.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1037–63.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Vickers AJ, Savage CJ, Hruza M, et al. The surgical learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:475–80.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
10.
Gandaglia G, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz PI, Sun M. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer. Future Oncol. 2015;11:2767–73.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001;87:408–10.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case. Prog Urol. 2000;10:520–3.PubMed
13.•
Diaz M, Peabody JO, Kapoor V, et al. Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015;67:1168–76. This study describes the long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, supporting its safety in terms of recurrence and cancer-specific survival.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Gandaglia G, Sammon JD, Chang SL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1419–26.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Gandaglia G, Trinh QD. Models of assessment of comparative outcomes of robot-assisted surgery: best evidence regarding the superiority or inferiority of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin N Am. 2014;41:597–606.CrossRef
16.
Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Gallina A, et al. How to optimize patient selection for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: functional outcome analyses from a tertiary referral center. J Endourol. 2014;28:792–800.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:405–17.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:418–30.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Hu JC, Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol. 2014;66:666–72.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Gandaglia G, Abdollah F, Hu J, et al. Is robot-assisted radical prostatectomy safe in men with high-risk prostate cancer? Assessment of perioperative outcomes, positive surgical margins, and use of additional cancer treatments. J Endourol. 2014;28:784–91.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Suardi N, DellOglio P, Gallina A, et al. Evaluation of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy according to preoperative risk groups. Urol Oncol. 2015 Sep 28.
22.
Aboumarzouk OM, Stein RJ, Eyraud R, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2012;62:1023–33.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Mottrie A, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Carpentier P, Sangalli M, Ficarra V. Impact of the learning curve on perioperative outcomes in patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy for parenchymal renal tumours. Eur Urol. 2010;58:127–32.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, et al. Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int. 2003;92:232–6.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Leow JJ, Reese SW, Jiang W, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of morbidity and costs of open and robot-assisted radical cystectomies: a contemporary population-based analysis in the United States. Eur Urol. 2014;66:569–76.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Marcus HJ, et al. Augmented reality partial nephrectomy: examining the current status and future perspectives. Urology. 2014;83:266–73.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Alenezi AN, Karim O. Role of intra-operative contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in robotic-assisted nephron-sparing surgery. J Robot Surg. 2015;9:1–10.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
28.
Hughes-Hallett A, Pratt P, Mayer E, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound overlay in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: first clinical experience. Eur Urol. 2014;65:671–2.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Meccariello G, Faedi F, AlGhamdi S, et al. An experimental study about haptic feedback in robotic surgery: may visual feedback substitute tactile feedback? J Robot Surg. 2015 Nov 11.
30.
Gettman MT, Box G, Averch T, et al. Consensus statement on natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and single-incision laparoscopic surgery: heralding a new era in urology? Eur Urol. 2008;53:1117–20.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Nguan C, Miller B, Patel R, Luke PP, Schlachta CM. Pre-clinical remote telesurgery trial of a da Vinci telesurgery prototype. Int J Med Robot. 2008;4:304–9.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Mottrie A, Novara G, Van der Poel H, Dasgupta P, Montorsi F, Gandaglia G. The European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum: an update. Eur Urol Focus. 2015.
34.••
Volpe A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P, et al. Pilot validation study of the European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum. Eur Urol. 2015;68:292–9. This study demonstrates that a 12-week training program allows surgeons with limited robotic experience to perform a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a safe and efficient manner.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Fisher RA, Dasgupta P, Mottrie A, et al. An over-view of robot assisted surgery curricula and the status of their validation. Int J Surg. 2015;13:115–23.CrossRefPubMed
36.•
Basto M, Sathianathen N, Te Marvelde L, et al. Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system. BJU Int. 2015 Sep 9. This study analyzes the uptake of robotic surgery in the Australian healthcare system and how to decrease the costs associated with this procedure.
37.
Richstone L, Kavoussi LR. Barriers to the diffusion of advanced surgical techniques. Cancer. 2008;112:1646–9.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Tandogdu Z, Vale L, Fraser C, Ramsay C. A systematic review of economic evaluations of the use of robotic assisted laparoscopy in surgery compared with open or laparoscopic surgery. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13:457–67.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Close A, Robertson C, Rushton S, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol. 2013;64:361–9.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Lasser MS, Doscher M, Keehn A, Chernyak V, Garfein E, Ghavamian R. Virtual surgical planning: a novel aid to robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2012;26:1372–9.CrossRefPubMed
41.••
Ukimura O, Nakamoto M, Gill IS. Three-dimensional reconstruction of renovascular-tumor anatomy to facilitate zero-ischemia partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;61:211–7. This article demonstrates that preoperative surgical planning using tridimensional reconstruction facilitates zero ischemia robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Dixon BJ, Daly MJ, Chan H, Vescan AD, Witterick IJ, Irish JC. Surgeons blinded by enhanced navigation: the effect of augmented reality on attention. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:454–61.CrossRefPubMed
43.••
Kaczmarek BF, Sukumar S, Petros F, et al. Robotic ultrasound probe for tumor identification in robotic partial nephrectomy: initial series and outcomes. Int J Urol. 2013;20:172–6. This study shows that intraoperative ultrasound imaging during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy allows for optimization of tumor identification.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Assimos DG, Boyce H, Woodruff RD, Harrison LH, McCullough DL, Kroovand RL. Intraoperative renal ultrasonography: a useful adjunct to partial nephrectomy. J Urol. 1991;146:1218–20.PubMed
45.
Shoji S, Aron M, de Castro Abreu AL, et al. Intraoperative ultrasonography with a surgeon-manipulated microtransducer during robotic radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2014;21:736–9.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Vora AA, Dajani D, Lynch JH, Kowalczyk KJ. Anatomic and technical considerations for optimizing recovery of urinary function during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23:78–87.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Bjurlin MA, McClintock TR, Stifelman MD. Near-infrared fluorescence imaging with intraoperative administration of indocyanine green for robotic partial nephrectomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16:20.CrossRefPubMed
48.••
Bjurlin MA, Gan M, McClintock TR, et al. Near-infrared fluorescence imaging: emerging applications in robotic upper urinary tract surgery. Eur Urol. 2014;65:793–801. This study shows that near-infrared fluorescence imaging provides real time intraoperative angiogram to confirm selective ischemia and/or tissue perfusion during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy or upper urinary tract surgery.CrossRefPubMed
49.•
KleinJan GH, van den Berg NS, Brouwer OR, et al. Optimisation of fluorescence guidance during robot-assisted laparoscopic sentinel node biopsy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;66:991–8. This study shows that intraoperative fluorescence-based sentinel node dissection can facilitate the identification of the node and increase the potential clinical relevance of this approach in prostate cancer patients.CrossRefPubMed
50.
McClintock TR, Bjurlin MA, Wysock JS, et al. Can selective arterial clamping with fluorescence imaging preserve kidney function during robotic partial nephrectomy? Urology. 2014;84:327–32.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
51.
Manny TB, Patel M, Hemal AK. Fluorescence-enhanced robotic radical prostatectomy using real-time lymphangiography and tissue marking with percutaneous injection of unconjugated indocyanine green: the initial clinical experience in 50 patients. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1162–8.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Tobis S, Knopf JK, Silvers CR, et al. Near infrared fluorescence imaging after intravenous indocyanine green: initial clinical experience with open partial nephrectomy for renal cortical tumors. Urology. 2012;79:958–64.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Autorino R, Zargar H, White WM, et al. Current applications of near-infrared fluorescence imaging in robotic urologic surgery: a systematic review and critical analysis of the literature. Urology. 2014;84:751–9.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Desai MM, de Castro Abreu AL, Leslie S, et al. Robotic partial nephrectomy with superselective versus main artery clamping: a retrospective comparison. Eur Urol. 2014;66:713–9.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Lee Z, Simhan J, Parker DC, et al. Novel use of indocyanine green for intraoperative, real-time localization of ureteral stenosis during robot-assisted ureteroureterostomy. Urology. 2013;82:729–33.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Brouwer OR, van den Berg NS, Matheron HM, et al. A hybrid radioactive and fluorescent tracer for sentinel node biopsy in penile carcinoma as a potential replacement for blue dye. Eur Urol. 2014;65:600–9.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Leijte JA, Valdes Olmos RA, Nieweg OE, Horenblas S. Anatomical mapping of lymphatic drainage in penile carcinoma with SPECT-CT: implications for the extent of inguinal lymph node dissection. Eur Urol. 2008;54:885–90.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Morgan M, Olweny EO, Cadeddu JA. LESS and NOTES instrumentation: future. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24:58–65.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Hirano D, Minei S, Yamaguchi K, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy for adrenal tumors via a single large port. J Endourol. 2005;19:788–92.CrossRefPubMed
60.
61.
Autorino R, Cadeddu JA, Desai MM, et al. Laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in urology: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2011;59:26–45.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Rane A, Autorino R. Robotic natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery and laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: current status. Curr Opin Urol. 2011;21:71–7.CrossRefPubMed
63.•
Cestari A, Buffi NM, Lista G, et al. Feasibility and preliminary clinical outcomes of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS) pyeloplasty using a new single-port platform. Eur Urol. 2012;62:175–9. This study shows the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted single-site pyeloplasty using a novel platform.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Petroni G, Niccolini M, Menciassi A, Dario P, Cuschieri A. A novel intracorporeal assembling robotic system for single-port laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:665–70.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Lehman AC, Wood NA, Farritor S, Goede MR, Oleynikov D. Dexterous miniature robot for advanced minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:119–23.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Kaouk JH, Haber GP, Autorino R, et al. A novel robotic system for single-port urologic surgery: first clinical investigation. Eur Urol. 2014;66:1033–43.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Gettman MT, Lotan Y, Napper CA, Cadeddu JA. Transvaginal laparoscopic nephrectomy: development and feasibility in the porcine model. Urology. 2002;59:446–50.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Branco AW, Branco Filho AJ, Kondo W, et al. Hybrid transvaginal nephrectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53:1290–4.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Tyson MD, Humphreys MR. Urological applications of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Nat Rev Urol. 2014;11:324–32.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Wood SG, Panait L, Duffy AJ, Bell RL, Roberts KE. Complications of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a series of 102 patients. Ann Surg. 2014;259:744–9.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Canes D, Lehman AC, Farritor SM, Oleynikov D, Desai MM. The future of NOTES instrumentation: flexible robotics and in vivo minirobots. J Endourol. 2009;23:787–92.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Laydner H, Autorino R, Isac W, et al. Robotic retroperitoneal transvaginal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) nephrectomy: feasibility study in a cadaver model. Urology. 2013;81:1232–7.CrossRefPubMed
73.•
Bozzini G, Gidaro S, Taverna G. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy with the ALF-X robot on pig models. Eur Urol. 2015 Sep 7. This preclinical study demonstrates the feasibility of partial nephrectomy using a novel robotic platform.
74.
Falavolti C, Gidaro S, Ruiz E, et al. Experimental nephrectomies using a novel telesurgical system: (the Telelap ALF-X)—a pilot study. Surg Technol Int. 2014;25:37–41.PubMed
75.
Saglam R, Muslumanoglu AY, Tokatli Z, et al. A new robot for flexible ureteroscopy: development and early clinical results (IDEAL stage 1–2b). Eur Urol. 2014;66:1092–100.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Gueli Alletti S, Rossitto C, Fanfani F, et al. Telelap Alf-X-assisted laparoscopy for ovarian cyst enucleation: report of the first 10 cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:1079–83.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Fanfani F, Restaino S, Gueli Alletti S, et al. TELELAP ALF-X robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy: feasibility and perioperative outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:1011–7.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Mmeje CO, Martin AD, Nunez-Nateras R, Parker AS, Thiel DD, Castle EP. Cost analysis of open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14:26–31.CrossRefPubMed
79.
Williams SB, Prado K, Hu JC. Economics of robotic surgery: does it make sense and for whom? Urol Clin N Am. 2014;41:591–6.CrossRef
80.•
Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57:453–8. This investigation systematically analyzes and compares costs of robotic vs. laparoscopic vs. open radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer.CrossRefPubMed
81.
Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Sjoberg DD, et al. Comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2015;67:1042–50.CrossRefPubMed
82.
Mir SA, Cadeddu JA, Sleeper JP, Lotan Y. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25:447–53.CrossRefPubMed
83.
Bolenz C, Freedland SJ, Hollenbeck BK, et al. Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65:316–24.CrossRefPubMed
84.•
Delto JC, Wayne G, Yanes R, Nieder AM, Bhandari A. Reducing robotic prostatectomy costs by minimizing instrumentation. J Endourol. 2015;29:556–60. This study demonstrates how the optimization of the surgical instruments might result in a reduction by 40 % of the costs associated with robotic surgery.CrossRefPubMed
85.
Williams SB, Amarasekera CA, Gu X, et al. Influence of surgeon and hospital volume on radical prostatectomy costs. J Urol. 2012;188:2198–202.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Novel Technologies in Urologic Surgery: a Rapidly Changing Scenario
Authors
Giorgio Gandaglia
Peter Schatteman
Geert De Naeyer
Frederiek D’Hondt
Alexandre Mottrie
Publication date
01-03-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0577-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Current Urology Reports 3/2016 Go to the issue

Minimally Invasive Surgery (T Guzzo, Section Editor)

Contemporary Status of Percutaneous Ablation for the Small Renal Mass

Female Urology (K Kobashi, Section Editor)

Pelvic Prolapse Repair in the Era of Mesh

Female Urology (K Kobashi, Section Editor)

Underactive Bladder

Urosurgery (J Collins, Section Editor)

Evolving Guidance on Ureteric Calculi Management in the Acute Setting

Urothelial Cancer (A Sagalowsky, Section Editor)

A Review Comparing Experience and Results with Bipolar Versus Monopolar Resection for Treatment of Bladder Tumors

Prostate Cancer (A Kibel, Section Editor)

Prostate Cancer Imaging with Novel PET Tracers