Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Urologic Surgery: How to Make an Effective Robotic Program

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery

  • 1174 Accesses

Abstract

In order for hospitals and physicians to remain competitive, continued training and the use of new technology are needed to keep up with the ever evolving health-care world. Robotic surgery is a perfect example of how technology has revolutionized the surgical field. From open to laparoscopic to robotic, surgical equipment has developed in order to improve precision and shorten recovery times. Robotic surgery was developed in part to manage the anatomical challenges of operating in the pelvis and allows for tremor filtering, movement scaling, improved ergonomics, better vision of the operative field, and increased range of motion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Patel VR, Chammas MF Jr., Shah S. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a review of the current state of affairs. Int J Clin Pract. 2007;61:309.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Grundfest WS, Culjat MO, King CH, et al. Development and testing of a tactile feedback system for robotic surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;142:103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Bhandari M, et al. Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009. Eur Urol. 2009;56:89.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Guru KA, Perlmutter AE, Sheldon MJ, et al. Apical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: does technique matter? J Endourol. 2009;23:123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, et al. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology. 2002;60:864.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology. 2004;63:819.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoekstra AV, Morgan JM, Lurain JR, et al. Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: impact on fellowship training. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;56:89.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Casale P. Robotic pediatric urology. Curr Urol Rep. 2009;10:115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Morgan JA, Thornton BA, Peacock JC, et al. Does robotic technology make minimally invasive cardiac surgery too expensive? A hospital cost analysis of robotic and conventional techniques. J Card Surg. 2005;20:246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bultitude MF, Murphy D, Challacombe B, et al. Patient perception of robotic urology. BJU Int. 2009;103:285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Gettman MT. The new economics of radical prostatectomy: cost comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot assisted techniques. J Urol. 2004;172:1431.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scales CD Jr., Jones PJ, Eisenstein EL, et al. Local cost structures and the economics of robot assisted radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005;174:2323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Steinberg PL, Merguerian PA, Bihrle W 3rd, et al. The cost of learning robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology. 2008;72:1068.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Burgess SV, Atug F, Castle EP, et al. Cost analysis of radical retropubic, perineal, and robotic prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2006;20:827.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, et al. Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol. 2006;49:866.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith JA Jr., Chan RC, Chang SS, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;178:2385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller J, Smith A, Kouba E, et al. Prospective evaluation of short-term impact and recovery of health related quality of life in men undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2007;178:854.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gianino MM, Galzerano M, Tizzani A, et al. Critical issues in current comparative and cost analyses between retropubic and robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008;101:2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Coon TM. Integrating robotic technology into the operating room. Am J Orthop. 2009;38:7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Duchene DA, Moinzadeh A, Gill IS, et al. Survey of residency training in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. J Urol. 2006;176:2158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Klein EA, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, et al. Surgeon experience is strongly associated with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for all preoperative risk categories. J Urol. 2008;179:2212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Amodeo A, Linares Quevedo A, Joseph JV, et al. Robotic laparoscopic surgery: cost and training. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2009;61:121.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sturm LP, Windsor JA, Cosman PH, et al. A systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training. Ann Surg. 2008;248:166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tsuda S, Scott D, Doyle J, et al. Surgical skills training and simulation. Curr Probl Surg. 2009;46:271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schroeck FR, de Sousa CA, Kalman RA, et al. Trainees do not negatively impact the institutional learning curve for robotic prostatectomy as characterized by operative time, estimated blood loss, and positive surgical margin rate. Urology. 2008;71:597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke Prostate Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    Arthur Caire, Michael N. Ferrandino & David M. Albala

Authors
  1. Arthur Caire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael N. Ferrandino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David M. Albala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Albala .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Sciences, Dept. Urology, All India Institute of, Ansari Nagar, New Dehli, 110029, India

    Ashok Kumar Hemal

  2. Henry Ford Health System, W. Grand Blvd. 2799, Detroit, 48202, Michigan, USA

    Mani Menon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Caire, A., Ferrandino, M.N., Albala, D.M. (2011). Robotic Urologic Surgery: How to Make an Effective Robotic Program. In: Hemal, A., Menon, M. (eds) Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-114-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-114-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-113-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-114-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation