Changes in urological surgical techniques

Yıl 2010, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 2, 186 - 192, 01.06.2010

Oktay Üçer Bilal Gümüş

https://doi.org/10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2011.02

Öz

Recently, laparoscopic and afterwards robotic techniques have constituted most of urologic surgery procedures. Open surgery may give place to robotic surgery due to possible widespread use of robots in the future. Studies, that compare these two techniques are usually designed about radical prostatectomy, since it is the most common operation performed by using these techniques. In lit­erature, robotic surgery seems more advantageous than other techniques but the most important disadvantage of this technique is cost-effective problems. In present re­view, history of open, laparoscopic and robotic surgery, and comparison of advantages, disadvantages and cost of these techniques have been discussed with literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

urological surgery, techniques, robotic sur­gery, trends

Ürolojik cerrahide teknikler değişiyor mu?

Öz

Laparoskopik ve ardından robotik teknikler son zamanlar­da ürolojik cerrahinin büyük çoğunluğunu oluşturmaktadır. Gelecekte robotların yaygınlaşmasıyla, açık cerrahi yerini robotik cerrahiye bırakabilir. Bu tekniklerle en fazla yapı­lan ameliyat radikal prostatektomi olduğundan, çalışmalar genellikle bu ameliyat tekniklerinin karşılaştırılması şek­linde tasarlanmıştır. Çalışmaların genelinde robotik cerra­hi daha avantajlı olarak gözükse de, robotik cerrahinin en büyük dezavantajı ekonomik problemlerdir. Bu derlemede açık, laparoskopik ve robotik cerrahinin tarihsel gelişimi, avantaj ve dezavantajlarının karşılaştırılması ve maliyet hesaplaması literatür eşliğinde tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ürolojik cerrahi, teknikler, robotik cer­rahi, yönelişler

Kaynakça

• Campbell EW. Total prostatectomy with preliminary ligation of the vascular pedicles. J Urol 1959; 81: 464-7.
• Lich R, Grant O, Maurer JE. Extravesical prostatectomy: A comparision of retropubic and perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 1949; 61: 930-42.
• Memmelaar J. Total prostatovesiculectomy: Retropubic ap- proach. J Urol 1949; 62: 340-8.
• Chute R. Radical retropubic prostatectomy for cancer. J Urol 1954; 71: 347-72.
• Ansell JS. Radical transvesical prostatectomy: Preliminary report on an approach to surgical excision of localized pros- tate malignancy. J Urol 1959; 2: 373-4.
• Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotance following radical prostate- ctomy: Insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982; 128: 492-7.
• Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Lowe FC. Potency following radical prostatectomy with wide unilateral excision of the neuro- vascular bundle. J Urol 1987; 138: 823-7.
• Schuessler W, Kavoussi L, Clayman R, Vancaille T. Lap- aroscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial case report. J Urol 1992; 147: 246-8.
• Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Rozet F, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol 1999; 26: 14-20.
• Guillonneau B, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical pros- tatectomy: The Montsouris experience. J Urol 2000; 163: 418-22.
• Rassweiler J, Sentker L, Seemann Ol. Laparoscopische radikale prostatektomie–technik un derste erfahrungen. Aktuelle Urol. 2000; 31: 238-47.
• Davies BL, Hibberd RD, Ng WS, Timoney AG, Wickham JE. The development of a surgeon robot for prostatecto- mies. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1991; 205: 35-8.
• Nedas TG, Challacombe BJ, Dasgupta P. Robotics in urol- ogy: an update. Int J Med Robot 2005; 1: 13-8.
• Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic rad- ical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001; 87: 408-10.
• Box GN, Ahlering TE. Robotic radical prostatectomy: long- term outcomes. Curr Opin Urol 2008; 18: 173-9.
• Berryhill R Jr, Jhaveri J, Yadav R, Leung R, Rao S, El-Ha- kim A, Tewari A. Robotic prostatectomy: a review of out- comes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology 2008; 72: 15-23.
• Frota R, Turna B, Barros R, Gill IS. Comparison of radical prostatectomy techniques: open, laparoscopic and robotic assisted. Int Braz J Urol 2008; 34: 259-69.
• Gonzalgo ML, Pavlovich CP, Trock BJ, Link RE, Sullivan W, Su LM. Classificationand trends of perioperative mor- bidities following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005; 174: 135-9.
• Hsu EI, Hong EK, Lepor H. Influence of body weight and prostate volume on intraoperative, perioperative and post- operative outcomes after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 61: 601-6.
• Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, Smith DS. Ptencyi continence and complication rates in 1870 consecutive rad- ical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 1999; 162: 433-8.
• Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T. Laparoscopic versus oper radical prostatecto- my: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol 2003; 169: 1689-93.
• Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Baumert H, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic redical prostatectomy: assess- ment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002; 43: 123-33.
• Menon M, Tewari A. Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy Team: Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology In- stitute technique: an interim analysis of results and techni- cal points. Urology 2003; 61(Suppl 1): 15-20.
• Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Shoma AM, El-Tabey NA, Shaaban A, Abol-Enein H, Ghoneim MA. Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatec- tomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int 2003; 92: 232-6.
• Beecken WD, Wolfram M, Engl T, Bentas W, Probst M, Blaheta R, Oertl A, Jonas D, Binder J. Robotic-assisted lap- aroscopic radical cystectomy and intra-abdominal forma- tion of an orthotopic ileal neobladder. Eur Urol 2003; 44: 337-9.
• Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin WS. A pro- spective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical proce- dures. Surg Endosc 2003; 17: 1521-4.
• Gill IS, Sung GT, Hsu TH, Meraney AM. Robotic remote laparoscopic nephrectomy and adrenalectomy: the initial experience. J Urol 2000; 164: 2082-5.
• Horgan S, Vanuno D, Sileri P, Cicalese L, Benedetti E. Ro- botic-assisted laparoscopic donornephrectomy for kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2002; 73: 1474-9.
• Hemal AK, Menon M. Robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol 2004; 14: 89-93.
• Desai MM, Gill IS, Kaouk JH, Matin SF, Sung GT, Bravo EL. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Urology 2002; 60: 1104-7.
• Sung GT, Gill IS, Hsu TH. Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. Urology 1999; 53: 1099-103
• Hubert J, Feuillu B, Mangin P, Lobontiu A, Artis M, Vil- lemot JP. Laparoscopic computer-assisted pyeloplasty: the results of experimental surgery in pigs. Br J Urol Int 2003; 92: 437-40.
• Peschel R, Gettman M, Bartsch G. Robotic-assisted laparo- scopic pyeloplasty: initial clinical results. Eur Urol 2003; 2(Suppl 2): 46.
• Hubert J, Feuillu B, Artis M. Robotic remote laparoscop- ic treatment of UPJ syndrome: 18 cases. Eur Urol 2003; 2(Suppl 2): 101.
• Gettman MT, Peschel R, Neururer R, Bartsch G. A compari- son of laparoscopic pyeloplasty performed with the daVinci robotic system versus standard aparoscopic techniques: ini- tial clinical results. Eur Urol 2002; 42: 453-7.
• Lotan Y. Economics of robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol 2010; 20: 92-7.
• Gardner TA, Bissonette EA, Petroni GR, McClain R, Sokoloff MH, Theodorescu D. Surgical and postoperative factors affecting length of hospital stay after radical pros- tatectomy. Cancer 2000; 89: 424-30.
• Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, lap- aroscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol 2004; 172: 1431-5.
• Scales CD Jr, Jones PJ, Eisenstein EL, Preminger GM, Al- bala DM. Local cost structures and the economics of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2005; 174: 2323-9.
• Mouraviev V, Nosnik I, Sun L, Robertson CN, Walther P, Albala D, Moul JW, Polascik TJ. Financial comparative analysis of minimally invasive surgery to open surgery for localized prostate cancer: a singleinstitution experience. Urology 2007; 69: 311-4.
• Menon M. Robotic radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2003; 91 175-6.