Advancements and Clinical Implications of Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Urology: A Decade of Innovation and Outcomes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52783/jns.v14.2328Keywords:
Robotic-assisted surgery, laparoscopy, urology, minimally invasive surgery, clinical outcomes, technology adoptionAbstract
Background: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has revolutionized minimally invasive surgery with its enhanced ergonomics, improved magnification, and precise surgical manipulation. Initially validated in procedures like robot-assisted prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy, its application has extended to other complex urological conditions, including bladder cancer and ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Methods: This review synthesizes outcomes from studies comparing robotic-assisted surgeries to both open surgeries and traditional laparoscopic approaches. Emphasis is placed on analyzing morbidity rates, blood loss, hospital stays, and clinical outcomes across various procedures. Additionally, the evolution of surgical technologies and their clinical adoption due to learning curves and cost reductions are examined.
Results: Robotic surgeries typically show lower morbidity, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital stays compared to open surgeries, with comparable clinical outcomes. Despite higher initial costs and setup times, RAS offers a shorter learning curve and reduced operative times compared to traditional laparoscopy. Emerging technologies and market competition are expected to further decrease costs and enhance the accessibility of robotic surgeries.
Conclusion: Robot-assisted surgery is likely to replace conventional laparoscopic approaches in many urological procedures. The ongoing development of new platforms and the reduction in costs, coupled with improved surgical training, predict a shift towards more widespread adoption of robotic systems in minimally invasive surgery.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Patel, V.R., Sivaraman, A., & Coelho, R.F. (2014). Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Recent advances and future directions. Nature Reviews Urology, 11(9), 508-517.
Ficarra, V., Novara, G., & Rosen, R.C. (2015). Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. European Urology, 62(3), 418-430.
Menon, M., Hemal, A.K., Tewari, A., et al. (2004). Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU International, 94(7), 1017-1022.
Lowrance, W.T., Eastham, J.A., Savage, C., et al. (2012). Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. Journal of Urology, 187(6), 2087-2092.
Mottrie, A., De Naeyer, G., Schatteman, P., et al. (2010). Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: Multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications in 225 consecutive cases. European Urology, 57(3), 430-435.
Ghani, K.R., Sukumar, S., Sammon, J.D., et al. (2014). Practice patterns and outcomes of open and minimally invasive partial nephrectomy since the introduction of robotic partial nephrectomy: Results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Journal of Urology, 191(4), 907-912.
Abaza, R., & Ghani, K.R. (2011). Robotic urological surgery in patients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery: Analysis of perioperative outcomes and comparison with patients lacking previous surgery. Urology, 78(6), 1360-1364.
Tewari, A., Peabody, J.O., Fischer, M., et al. (2002). An operative and anatomic study to help in nerve sparing during laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. European Urology, 41(5), 502-508.
Autorino, R., Zargar, H., Mariano, M.B., et al. (2015). Robotic partial nephrectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. European Urology, 68(1), 87-105.
Froghi, S., Ahmed, K., Khan, M.S., et al. (2013). Evaluation of robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for small renal tumours (T1a). BJU International, 112(5), 635-642.
Leow, J.J., Heah, N.H., Chang, S.L., et al. (2016). Outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic repair of small-bowel obstruction: A multicenter, prospective, comparative study. Surgical Endoscopy, 30(9), 3755-3763.
Sim, H.G., & Yip, S.K.H. (2009). Robotics in urology. Asian Journal of Urology, 6(3), 171-176.
Tan, G.J., Gilling, P.J., & Kennett, K.M. (2011). The current status of robotic oncological surgery. BJU International, 107(2), 170-177.
Gettman, M.T., Box, G., Averch, T., et al. (2012). Consensus statement on the urologist's role in the development and utilization of robotic technology. Journal of Urology, 188(3), 814-819.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
