Literature DB >> 10918974

Laparoscopic surgery in urology.

G Janetschek1, M Marberger.   

Abstract

Not more than 10 years ago, laparoscopy was introduced to the armamentarium of urology. The start was slow, with pelvic lymphadenectomy, nephrectomy and varicocelectomy being about the only indications. However, very soon great enthusiasm developed, and almost every urological operation was performed by means of laparoscopy. For several reasons this exaggerated enthusiasm had to be followed by disappointment. First of all, laparoscopy turned out not to be as easy as many would have liked it to be. Due to a low frequency of operations, many surgeons were never able to overcome their learning curve, and the early literature reflects this problem. Unlike general surgery where cholecystectomy developed into a pacemaker operation, which forced everybody to go ahead with laparoscopy, urology was long searching for good and frequent indications for this new technique. Within the last few years, the pendulum has swung back to the other side. Adrenalectomy was one of the first indications where laparoscopy proved superior to open surgery in every aspect. Several other good indications have followed, some of which, namely cryptorchidism, nephrectomy and pyeloplasty, will be presented in detail to give an example. But the breakthrough that recently occurred is due to the success of laparoscopy in the field of oncologic surgery. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy has shown its surgical efficiency as well as its oncologic efficacy. However, the main interest is now focused on radical prostatectomy, since this is the most frequently performed operation in urology by now. Recently this operation could be developed to a standardized technique, but only time will tell its true impact. Several indications will change in the future, but laparoscopy is here to stay.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10918974     DOI: 10.1097/00042307-200007000-00010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Urol        ISSN: 0963-0643            Impact factor:   2.309


  8 in total

1.  First report on sequential totally endoscopic thymomectomy and adrenalectomy using computer-enhanced telemanipulation.

Authors:  M F Khan; J Binder; S Dogan; W Bentas; T Aybek; G Wimmer-Greinecker
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-06-19       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique.

Authors:  M Wolfram; R Bräutigam; T Engl; W Bentas; S Heitkamp; M Ostwald; W Kramer; J Binder; R Blaheta; D Jonas; W-D Beecken
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2003-07-08       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Laparoscopic prostatectomy: where do we stand?

Authors:  Mesut Remzi; Bob Djavan
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2002

4.  Da Vinci robot assisted Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty: technique and 1 year follow-up.

Authors:  Wassilios Bentas; Marc Wolfram; Ronald Bräutigam; Michael Probst; Wolf-Dietrich Beecken; Dietger Jonas; Jochen Binder
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2003-07-09       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  [Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: indications, techniques, and oncological outcome].

Authors:  A H Wille; J Roigas; S Deger; I Türk; M Tüllmann; A Dubbke; D Schnorr
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Laparoscopic varicocelectomy: virtual reality training and learning curve.

Authors:  Zheng Wang; Yuhua Ni; Yinan Zhang; Xunbo Jin; Qinghua Xia; Hanbo Wang
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

7.  A comparison of operative and margin outcomes from surgeon learning curves in robot assisted radical prostatectomy in a changing referral practice.

Authors:  A Jaulim; A Srinivasan; S Hori; N Kumar; A Y Warren; N C Shah; V J Gnanapragasam
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 1.891

8.  Comparison of the clinical effectiveness of 3D and 2D imaging systems for laparoscopic radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection.

Authors:  Feng Jie Tang; Lin Qi; Hui Chuan Jiang; Shi Yu Tong; Yuan Li
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 1.671

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.