Reply

Abstract

We thank Kim and da Silva 1 Kim F.J. da Silva R.D. Instrument life for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy: are ten lives for most instruments justified? [Editorial Comment]. Urology. 2015; 86: 942-946 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (7) Google Scholar for their comments. It is possible that our findings can be extrapolated to other surgical scenarios; however, caution must be exercised in generalizing the data presented. We specifically analyzed the instrument use of 3 surgeons at one institution performing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Importantly, we cannot determine the cause of instrument failure. Editorial CommentUrologyVol. 86Issue 5PreviewLudwig et al1 in their article raised an important question of quantifying the frequency of “premature” instrument exchange, rates of exchange with increasing surgeon experience, and the impact of instrument exchange on operative time during 2 common urologic surgeries—robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Although these are considered common urological procedures, the real clinical value of robotic-assisted procedures remains controversial. Full-Text PDF Editorial CommentUrologyVol. 86Issue 5PreviewIf the use of robot-assisted surgery has experienced an exponential growth over the past few years, particularly in urology, its operative costs remain significantly higher than those of conventional laparoscopy and open surgery. All means to optimize costs need therefore to be considered. Full-Text PDF