Postoperative nursing in robot‐assisted urologic surgery: Are there any platform‐based differences?

Abstract

AbstractMany robotic platforms are currently available for urologic surgery, each with its technical characteristics. It can be hypothesised that these characteristics might affect postoperative nursing, as they affect several aspects of surgery. They could, therefore, impact the surgical outcomes and wound characteristics, involving aspects of postoperative care such as mobilization, nutrition and length of stay. Although data are available on surgical technique aspects and intraoperative nursing, studies have yet to offer insights and considerations about the potential effect of having different robotic platforms on postoperative nursing care. We aimed to verify whether the technical features of the available robots could impact postoperative nursing. We conducted an integrative review on PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus, using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free‐text terms; wildcards and boolean operators were also used. Studies of any design were included. Fifteen papers were retrieved; the key themes emerging from the literature regard trocar setup, technical characteristics of the robots (e.g. single or multiple ports), pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg degree. According to the literature, none of these characteristics produce differences in postoperative nursing. The fundamental concepts of postoperative care in surgical inpatients stay the same no matter the robotic platform used. Having competing platforms able to ensure reduced complications without impacting postoperative nursing allows health care facilities to adopt the newest technologies without the need for differentiated nursing protocols. This is an advantage in times of global nursing shortage as it avoids the need for additional platform‐based nursing training.