Principles and advantages of robotics in urologic surgery.

Antonio Renda, Guy Vallancien
Author Information
  1. Antonio Renda: Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Boulevard Jourdan 42, F-75014 Paris, France.

Abstract

Although the available minimally invasive surgical techniques (ie, laparoscopy) have clear advantages, these procedures continue to cause problems for patients. Surgical tools are limited by set axes of movement, restricting the degree of freedom available to the surgeon. In addition, depth perception is lost with the use of two-dimensional viewing systems. As surgeons view a "virtual" target on a television screen, they are hampered by decreased sensory input and a concurrent loss of dexterity. The development of robotic assistance systems in recent years could be the key to overcoming these difficulties. Using robotic systems, surgeons can experience a more natural and ergonomic surgical "feel." Surgical assistance, dexterity and precision enhancement, systems networking, and image-guided therapy are among the benefits offered by surgical robots. In return, the surgeon gains a shorter learning curve, reduced fatigue, and the opportunity to perform complex procedures that would be difficult using conventional laparoscopy. With the development of image-guided technology, robotic systems will become useful tools for surgical training and simulation. Remote surgery is not a routine procedure, but several teams are working on this and experiencing good results. However, economic concerns are the major drawbacks of these systems; before remote surgery becomes routinely feasible, the clinical benefits must be balanced with high investment and running costs.

References

  1. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001 May;121(5):842-53 [PMID: 11326227]
  2. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1991;205(1):35-8 [PMID: 1670073]
  3. J Urol. 2001 Jul;166(1):200-1 [PMID: 11435858]
  4. Rev Urol. 1999 Spring;1(2):104-20 [PMID: 16985782]
  5. Eur Urol. 2001 Jul;40(1):70-4 [PMID: 11528179]
  6. J Urol. 1995 Dec;154(6):2134-6 [PMID: 7500476]
  7. C R Biol. 2002 Apr;325(4):321-6 [PMID: 12161911]
  8. J Urol. 2002 Sep;168(3):945-9 [PMID: 12187196]
  9. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2000;214(1):129-40 [PMID: 10718057]
  10. Am J Surg. 2002 Jun;183(6):702-7 [PMID: 12095605]
  11. Eur Urol. 2001 Jul;40(1):75-83 [PMID: 11528180]
  12. Urology. 2001 Dec;58(6):893-8 [PMID: 11744453]
  13. Prog Urol. 2002 Sep;12(4):592-6 [PMID: 12463116]
  14. Ann Surg. 2001 Jul;234(1):1-7 [PMID: 11420476]
  15. J Urol. 2000 Jun;163(6):1643-9 [PMID: 10799152]
  16. BMJ. 1995 Dec 2;311(7018):1479-82 [PMID: 8520340]
  17. Urology. 1994 Jul;44(1):15-9 [PMID: 8042260]
  18. Urol Clin North Am. 1998 Feb;25(1):75-85 [PMID: 9529538]
  19. J Endourol. 2000 Mar;14(2):133-8 [PMID: 10772504]
  20. Arch Surg. 1998 Sep;133(9):957-61 [PMID: 9749847]
  21. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000 Dec;120(6):1171-2 [PMID: 11088044]
  22. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999 Jul;118(1):11-6 [PMID: 10384178]
  23. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1997 Oct;7(5):277-83 [PMID: 9453871]

MeSH Term

Humans
Laparoscopy
Robotics
Urologic Surgical Procedures

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0systemssurgicalroboticsurgeryavailablelaparoscopyadvantagesproceduresSurgicaltoolssurgeonsurgeonsdexteritydevelopmentassistanceimage-guidedbenefitsAlthoughminimallyinvasivetechniquesieclearcontinuecauseproblemspatientslimitedsetaxesmovementrestrictingdegreefreedomadditiondepthperceptionlostusetwo-dimensionalviewingview"virtual"targettelevisionscreenhampereddecreasedsensoryinputconcurrentlossrecentyearskeyovercomingdifficultiesUsingcanexperiencenaturalergonomic"feel"precisionenhancementnetworkingtherapyamongofferedrobotsreturngainsshorterlearningcurvereducedfatigueopportunityperformcomplexdifficultusingconventionaltechnologywillbecomeusefultrainingsimulationRemoteroutineprocedureseveralteamsworkingexperiencinggoodresultsHowevereconomicconcernsmajordrawbacksremotebecomesroutinelyfeasibleclinicalmustbalancedhighinvestmentrunningcostsPrinciplesroboticsurologic

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)