Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T21:24:48.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Robotic urological surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2009

Prokar Dasgupta  and
Alastair Henderson
Prokar Dasgupta*
Affiliation:
Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London School of Medicine, London, UK
Alastair Henderson
Affiliation:
Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London School of Medicine, London, UK
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: prokarurol@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Robotic technology has been used in urological surgery since the late 1980's with the invention of robotic endoscopic prostate surgery. The major technological landmark has been the widespread introduction of the da Vinci master-slave manipulator which is now used in up to 60% of radical prostatectomy operations in the USA. These machines offer a number of tools to facilitate laparoscopic surgery though they require both a human console operator and a surgical team to connect the device to laparoscopic ports in the patient's abdomen. We outline the improved outcomes and future development of prostatectomy, cystectomy and pyeloplasty associated with robotic technology.

Keywords

RoboticsRadical prostatectomyCystectomyPyeloplasty

Information

Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 28 , Special Issue 2: Surgical Robotics: System Development, Application Study and Performance Analysis , March 2010 , pp. 235 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

References

1. Davies, B. L., Hibberd, R. D., Ng, W. S., Timoney, A. G. and Wickham, J. E., “The development of a surgeon robot for prostatectomies,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. [H] 205 (1), 35–38 (1991).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Challacombe, B., Kavoussi, L., Patriciu, A., Stoianovici, D. and Dasgupta, P., “Technology insight: Telementoring and telesurgery in urology,” Nat. Clin. Pract. Urol. 3 (11), 611–617 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Atug, F., Castle, E. P., Woods, M., Davis, R. and Thomas, R., “Robotics in urologic surgery: An evolving new technology,” Int. J. Urol. 13 (7), 857–863 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Elhage, O. and Hegarty, N., “Robotic technology,” In: Urologic Robotic Surgery in Clinical Practice (Dasgupta, P., Peabody, J. and Menon, M., eds.) (Springer, 2008) pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
5. Challacombe, B. J., Khan, M. S., Murphy, D. and Dasgupta, P., “The history of robotics in urology,” World J. Urol. 24 (2), 120–127 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Badani, K. K., Kaul, S. and Menon, M., “Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: Assessment after 2766 procedures,” Cancer 110 (9), 1951–1958 (2007).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Dasgupta, P., Patil, K., Anderson, C. and Kirby, R., “Transition from open to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy,” BJU Int. 101 (6), 667–668 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Tewari, A. K., Bigelow, K., Rao, S., Takenaka, A., El-Tabi, N., Te, A. and Vaughan, E. D., “Anatomic restoration technique of continence mechanism and preservation of puboprostatic collar: A novel modification to achieve early urinary continence in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy,” Urology 69 (4), 726–731 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Patel, V. R., Thaly, R. and Shah, K., “Robotic radical prostatectomy: Outcomes of 500 cases,” BJU Int. 99 (5), 1109–1112 (2007).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Kaul, S., Savera, A., Badani, K., Fumo, M., Bhandari, A. and Menon, M., “Functional outcomes and oncological efficacy of Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy with Veil of Aphrodite nerve-sparing: An analysis of 154 consecutive patients,” BJU Int. 97 (3), 467–472 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Martinez-Salamanca, J. I., Rao, S., Ramanathan, R., Gonzalez, J., Mandhani, A., Yang, X., Tu, J., Vaughan, E. D. and Tewari, A., “Nerve advancement with end-to-end reconstruction after partial neurovascular bundle resection: A feasibility study,” J. Endourol. 21 (8), 830–835 (2007).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Dasgupta, P., Rimington, P., Murphy, D., Elhage, O., Challacombe, B. and Khan, M. S., “Robotically assisted radical cystectomy,” BJU Int. 101 (12), 1489–1490 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Murphy, D. G., Challacombe, B. J., Elhage, O., O'Brien, T. S., Rimington, P., Khan, M. S. and Dasgupta, P., “Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy with extracorporeal urinary diversion: Initial experience,” Eur. Urol. 54 (3), 570–580 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Murphy, D., Challacombe, B., Elhage, O., Khan, M. S. and Dasgupta, P., “Robotically assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty,” BJU Int. 102 (1), 136–151 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Gettman, M. T., Blute, M. L., Peschel, R. and Bartsch, G., “Current status of robotics in urologic laparoscopy,” Eur. Urol. 43 (2), 106–112 (2003).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Phillips, C. K., Kau, E., Taneja, S. S. and Stifelman, M. D., “Robotic assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy,” J. Endourol. 19, 441–445 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Caruso, R. P., Phillips, C. K., Kau, E., Taneja, S. S. and Stifelman, M. D., “Robot assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: Initial experience. J. Urol. 176 (1), 36–39 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Kaul, S., Laungani, R., Sarle, R., Stricker, H., Peabody, J., Littleton, R. and Menon, M., “da Vinci-assisted robotic partial nephrectomy: Technique and results at a mean of 15 months of follow-up,” Eur. Urol. 51 (1), 186–191 (2007); discussion 191–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Sairam, K. and Dasgupta, P., “Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy,” BJU Int. 102 (3), 266–267 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed