Abstract
Robotic surgery saw unprecedented success throughout the world, with urology as a key discipline. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and partial nephrectomy (RAPN) were the frontline procedures. Many other urologic procedures have since been standardized over time. However, there is no universal consensus in current research on the recognition of robotics as the standard of care. Although better operative outcomes have been reported for most robotic procedures compared to open and laparoscopic surgery, no superiority has been proven as far as oncologic outcomes are concerned. This review aims to describe current research on robotic surgery concerning each urologic procedure, showing its applications and limits. The non-classic parameters in part responsible for the planetary success of robotics, such as the shorter learning curve, improved ergonomics, and surgeon’s comfort, as well immersive three-dimensional vision, are further areas of focus.
Highlights
Robotic surgery saw unprecedented success throughout the world, with urology as a key discipline
This review aims to describe the current state of robotic surgery research in each urologic procedure, presenting its applications and limits
Zhang et al evaluated Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and Robotics-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RAPN) in fully endophytic renal tumors, which were shown to be comparable in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), WIT, positive surgical margin (PSM) rate rates, and postoperative complications; a lower cost in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) was shown [22]
Summary
Robotic surgery has seen a tremendous evolution since the launch of the first robotic platform. Zhang et al evaluated LPN and RAPN in fully endophytic renal tumors, which were shown to be comparable in terms of operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), WIT, PSM rate rates, and postoperative complications; a lower cost in LRP was shown [22]. RAPN demonstrated a shorter WIT; it did not demonstrate significant differences in terms of blood loss, operative time, conversion, complications, or hospitalization (LOS) [29,30] These advantages of the robotic technique must be attributed to image magnification, improved. RAP was associated with a 10 min operative time reduction and significantly shorter hospital stays compared with laparoscopic pyeloplasty; there were no differences between the approaches with regard to the rates of complication (including urinary leaks and readmission) and success [58].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
