Literature DB >> 19671225

Current status of robot-assisted surgery in urology: a multi-national survey of 297 urologic surgeons.

Khurshid A Guru1, Abid Hussain, Rameela Chandrasekhar, Pamela Piacente, Abid Hussain, Rameela Chandrasekhar, Pamela Piacente, Marlene Bienko, Mark Glasgow, Willie Underwood, Gregory Wilding, James L Mohler, Mani Menon, James O Peabody.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The surgical robot is becoming an important tool for performance of minimally invasive surgical procedures around the world. We surveyed opinions about and utilization of robot-assisted surgery among urologic surgeons from 44 countries.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 297 surveys were completed from September to November 2008 by participating urologic surgeons polled at various national and international urologic meetings. The survey evaluated surgeon background, personal experience with minimally invasive surgery, institutional status regarding robotic surgery surgeons' attitudes towards robot-assisted surgery, in general, and prostate, bladder and kidney oncologic procedures, specifically.
RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-seven participants completed the survey of which 35% were in training for and 54% in practice of urology. Although 57% of these participants were older than 40, 62% had never sat on a robotic surgical console but 61% believed they would perform robot-assisted surgery. Seventy-eight percent of respondents felt it was required or beneficial to have training in robot-assisted surgery. Only 21% of respondents were currently performing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Sixty-one percent of respondents felt robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was the current gold standard or as good as laparoscopic prostatectomy. Only 10% had performed robot-assisted radical cystectomy and 70% of these surgeons have transferred skills from robot-assisted radical prostectomy. Ten percent were performing robot-assisted radical nephrectomies and 30% had transferred skills for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy to robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.
CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted surgery has begun to integrate into the minimally invasive armamentarium for urologic surgery and is applied for more procedures as experience is gained.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19671225

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Urol        ISSN: 1195-9479            Impact factor:   1.344


  22 in total

1.  Status of robotic-assisted surgery among Canadian urology residents.

Authors:  Michael Robinson; Andrew Macneily; Larry Goldenberg; Peter Black
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 2.  Endopyelotomy in the age of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted pyeloplasty.

Authors:  Daniel Yong; David M Albala
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Nerve-sparing technique and urinary control after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Wesley W Choi; Marcos P Freire; Jane R Soukup; Lei Yin; Stuart R Lipsitz; Fernando Carvas; Stephen B Williams; Jim C Hu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Robotic radical cystectomy: intracorporeal versus extracorporeal versus orthotopic neobladder-Which is better?

Authors:  S S Goonewardene; R Persad; D Gillatt
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-02-12       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  A Review of the Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Fatima G Wilder; Atuhani Burnett; Joseph Oliver; Michael F Demyen; Ravi J Chokshi
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2015-10-22       Impact factor: 0.656

6.  Robotic mastoidectomy.

Authors:  Andrei Danilchenko; Ramya Balachandran; Jenna L Toennies; Stephan Baron; Benjamin Munske; J Michael Fitzpatrick; Thomas J Withrow; Robert J Webster; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Arguments against investing widely in robotic prostatectomy in Canada: a wrong focus on tool box rather than surgical expertise.

Authors:  Yves Fradet
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Diffusion of robotic-assisted laparoscopic technology across specialties: a national study from 2008 to 2013.

Authors:  Yen-Yi Juo; Aditya Mantha; Ahmad Abiri; Anne Lin; Erik Dutson
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Robot-assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy: a single surgeon's experiences and proposal of clinical application.

Authors:  Ho Kyoung Hwang; Chang Moo Kang; Young Eun Chung; Kyung Ah Kim; Sung Hoon Choi; Woo Jung Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-10-06       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a retrospective comparison of perioperative course and postoperative outcome after 1 year.

Authors:  Anthony Yang; Naman Barman; Edward Chin; Daniel Herron; Antonios Arvelakis; Dianne LaPointe Rudow; Sander S Florman; Michael A Palese
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2017-08-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.