Giovanni E Cacciamani1, A Shakir2, A Tafuri2,3, K Gill2, J Han2, N Ahmadi2,4, P A Hueber2, M Gallucci5, G Simone5, R Campi6,7, G Vignolini6,7, W C Huang8, J Taylor8, E Becher8, F W B Van Leeuwen9,10,11, H G Van Der Poel9, L P Velet12, A K Hemal12, A Breda13, R Autorino14, R Sotelo2, M Aron2, M M Desai2, A L De Castro Abreu2. 1. USC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. giovanni.cacciamani@med.usc.edu. 2. USC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Urology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 4. Department of Uro-Oncology, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 5. Department of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy. 6. Department of Urologic Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 7. Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 8. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, NYU Langone Health, New York, USA. 9. Department of Urology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 10. Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Leiden University Medical center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 11. Orsi Academy, Melle, Belgium. 12. Department of Urology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 13. Fundació Puigvert, Department of Urology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 14. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study is to investigate the impact of the near-infrared (NIRF) technology with indocyanine green (ICG) in robotic urologic surgery by performing a systematic literature review and to provide evidence-based expert recommendations on best practices in this field. METHODS: All English language publications on NIRF/ICG-guided robotic urologic procedures were evaluated. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) statement to evaluate PubMed®, Scopus® and Web of Science™ databases (up to April 2019). Experts in the field provided detailed pictures and intraoperative video-clips of different NIRF/ICG-guided robotic surgeries with recommendations for each procedure. A unique QRcode was generated and linked to each underlying video-clip. This new exclusive feature makes the present the first "dynamic paper" that merges text and figure description with their own video providing readers an innovative, immersive, high-quality and user-friendly experience. RESULTS: Our electronic search identified a total of 576 papers. Of these, 36 studies included in the present systematic review reporting the use of NIRF/ICG in robotic partial nephrectomy (n = 13), robotic radical prostatectomy and lymphadenectomy (n = 7), robotic ureteral re-implantation and reconstruction (n = 5), robotic adrenalectomy (n = 4), robotic radical cystectomy (n = 3), penectomy and robotic inguinal lymphadenectomy (n = 2), robotic simple prostatectomy (n = 1), robotic kidney transplantation (n = 1) and robotic sacrocolpopexy (n = 1). CONCLUSION: NIRF/ICG technology has now emerged as a safe, feasible and useful tool that may facilitate urologic robotic surgery. It has been shown to improve the identification of key anatomical landmarks and pathological structures for oncological and non-oncological procedures. Level of evidence is predominantly low. Larger series with longer follow-up are needed, especially in assessing the quality of the nodal dissection and the feasibility of the identification of sentinel nodes and the impact of these novel technologies on long-term oncological and functional outcomes.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study is to investigate the impact of the near-infrared (NIRF) technology with indocyanine green (ICG) in robotic urologic surgery by performing a systematic literature review and to provide evidence-based expert recommendations on best practices in this field. METHODS: All English language publications on NIRF/ICG-guided robotic urologic procedures were evaluated. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) statement to evaluate PubMed®, Scopus® and Web of Science™ databases (up to April 2019). Experts in the field provided detailed pictures and intraoperative video-clips of different NIRF/ICG-guided robotic surgeries with recommendations for each procedure. A unique QRcode was generated and linked to each underlying video-clip. This new exclusive feature makes the present the first "dynamic paper" that merges text and figure description with their own video providing readers an innovative, immersive, high-quality and user-friendly experience. RESULTS: Our electronic search identified a total of 576 papers. Of these, 36 studies included in the present systematic review reporting the use of NIRF/ICG in robotic partial nephrectomy (n = 13), robotic radical prostatectomy and lymphadenectomy (n = 7), robotic ureteral re-implantation and reconstruction (n = 5), robotic adrenalectomy (n = 4), robotic radical cystectomy (n = 3), penectomy and robotic inguinal lymphadenectomy (n = 2), robotic simple prostatectomy (n = 1), robotic kidney transplantation (n = 1) and robotic sacrocolpopexy (n = 1). CONCLUSION:NIRF/ICG technology has now emerged as a safe, feasible and useful tool that may facilitate urologic robotic surgery. It has been shown to improve the identification of key anatomical landmarks and pathological structures for oncological and non-oncological procedures. Level of evidence is predominantly low. Larger series with longer follow-up are needed, especially in assessing the quality of the nodal dissection and the feasibility of the identification of sentinel nodes and the impact of these novel technologies on long-term oncological and functional outcomes.
Authors: Samaneh Azargoshasb; Imke Boekestijn; Meta Roestenberg; Gijs H KleinJan; Jos A van der Hage; Henk G van der Poel; Daphne D D Rietbergen; Matthias N van Oosterom; Fijs W B van Leeuwen Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Osamah Hasan; Alexandra Reed; Mohammed Shahait; Raju Chelluri; David I Lee; Ryan W Dobbs Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 2.266
Authors: Elio Mazzone; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Nikos Grivas; Esther Wit; Maarten Donswijk; Alberto Briganti; Fijs Van Leeuwen; Henk van der Poel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 10.057