Literature DB >> 18551270

[Robot-assisted surgery in urology].

G J Wirth1, J Hauser, A Caviezel, J Schwartz, N Fleury, S-N Tran, C E Iselin.   

Abstract

Since 1990, laparoscopic surgery has undergone a tremendous evolution. As patients and surgeons alike push toward minimally invasive surgery, more and more complex operations have been performed by laparoscopy. However, highly complex and technically demanding procedures--such as radical prostatectomy--have revealed the limits of classical laparoscopic surgery. The introduction of the Da Vinci robot has changed the face of modern laparoscopy because it provides the surgeon with three-dimensional vision, more instrumental degrees of freedom, and greater ergonomics. Thus, laparoscopy has been able to strengthen its role in urology and is increasingly being used for radical prostatectomies, pyeloplasties, and ureteral operations such as ureterovesical reimplantations. For most types of operations, functional and early oncological outcomes appear similar to those of conventional laparoscopy or open surgery. The main drawbacks of robotic surgery are the costs of the disposable instruments and maintenance, which overshadow the initial purchase price. The near future will show how European health systems will react to this new financial burden. Our institution, within a university hospital with moderate patient recruitment, was equipped with a four-arm Da Vinci robot in February 2006. As of April 2008, 120 urological operations had been performed. Because robotic surgery is associated with a specific learning curve, divisions with limited case numbers may refrain from doing this type of surgery. The aim of this article is to evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of the initial period of a robotic program in a midsize division.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18551270     DOI: 10.1007/s00120-008-1774-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urologe A        ISSN: 0340-2592            Impact factor:   0.639


  6 in total

1.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technical aspects and experience with 125 cases.

Authors:  I Türk; S Deger; B Winkelmann; B Schönberger; S A Loening
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins.

Authors:  Thomas E Ahlering; Louis Eichel; Robert A Edwards; David I Lee; Douglas W Skarecky
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 3.  Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Stefano Cavalleri; Giacomo Novara; Maurizio Aragona; Walter Artibani
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-06-30       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Long-term results and late recurrence after endoureteropyelotomy: a critical analysis of prognostic factors.

Authors:  P J Van Cangh; J F Wilmart; R J Opsomer; A Abi-Aad; F X Wese; F Lorge
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Risk-adjusted analysis of positive surgical margins following laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Karim Touijer; Kentaro Kuroiwa; James A Eastham; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Peter T Scardino; Bertrand Guillonneau
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-12-13       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Is antegrade endopyelotomy really less invasive than open pyeloplasty?

Authors:  E Dobry; P Usai; U E Studer; H Danuser
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.089

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.