Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anesthesia for Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Urological Procedures

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Anesthesia for Urologic Surgery

Abstract

Various aspects of the administration of anesthesia to patients undergoing laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted urologic surgery are reviewed. The physiologic derangements that occur with the establishment of pneumoperitoneum and patient position are outlined. The components that comprise a robotic system and the surgeon-robot and patient-robot interactions in the surgical treatment of urologic cancers are described. Institutional concerns supporting a robotic program are presented.

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
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Wickham JE. The new surgery. Br Med J. 1987;295:1581–2.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Buckingham RA, Buckingham RO. Robots in operating theatres. Br Med J. 1995;311:1479–82.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Davies BL, Hibberd RD, Ng WS, Timoney AG, Wickham JE. The development of a surgeon robot for prostatectomies. Proc Inst Mech Eng. 1991;205:35–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Jonat W. One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaecological endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2748–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R, Nielsen ME, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol. 2009;57:196–201.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hohwu L, Akre O, Pedersen KV, Jonsson M, Nielsen CV, Gustafsson O. Open retropubic prostatectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a comparison of length of sick leave. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2009;7:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rocco B, et al. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2009;104(7):991–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Benway BM, et al. Robotic assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol. 2009;182:866–73. 143.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Carlsson S, Nilsson A, et al. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology. 2010;75(5):1092–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Parkin DM. The global burden of urinary bladder cancer. Clinical trial service unit and epidemiological studies unit. Headington: University of Oxford, Old Road Campus. 2008. max.parkin@ctsu.ox.ac.uk Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19054893

  11. The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study: Fact Sheet," National Cancer Institute, www.cancer.gov

  12. What are the Key Statistics About Prostate Cancer?," National Cancer Institute, www.cancer.gov

  13. World Health Organization; Global cancer rates could increase by 50% to 15 million by 2020; URL: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/

  14. Goswami S, Nishanian EV, Mets B. Anesthesia for robotic surgery. In: Miller RD, editor. Miller’s anesthesia. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2009. p. 2390–403.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Olympio MA. Anesthetic considerations for robotic urologic surgery. In: Hemal AK, editor. Robotics in genitourinary surgery. London: Springer-Verlag London Limited; 2011. p. 79–96.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Loveday R. Laparoscopy hazard (letter). Br Med J. 1971;1(5744):348.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tzovaras G, Fafoulakis F, Pratsas K. Spinal vs general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg. 2008;143:497–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bridenbaugh LD, Soderstrom RM. Lumbar epidural block anaesthesia for outpatient laparoscopy. J Reprod Med. 1979;23:85–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bonnet F, Marret E. Influence of anaesthetic and analgesic techniques on outcome after surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95:52–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu SS, Wu CL. The effect of analgesic technique on post-operative patient-reported outcomes including analgesia: a systematic review. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:789–808.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Block BM, Liu SS, Rowlingson AJ. Efficacy of postoperative epidural analgesia: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2003;290:2455–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Jorgensen H, Wetterslev J, Moiniche S. Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesia regimens on postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, PONV, and pain after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;4, CD001893.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wuethrich PY, Schmitz SH, Kessler TM, Thalmann GN, Studer UE, Stueber F, Burkhard FC. Potential influence of the anesthetic technique used during open radical prostatectomy on prostate cancer-related outcome. Anesthesiology. 2010;113:570–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rafi AN. Abdominal field block: a new approach via the lumbar triangle. Anaesthesia. 2001;56(10):1024.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hebbard P, Fujiwara Y, Shibata Y, et al. Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35(4):616.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hebbard P. Subcostal transversus abdominis plane block under ultrasound guidance. Anesth Analg. 2008;106(2):674.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Carney J, McDonnell JG, Ochana A, et al. The transversus abdominis plane block provides effective postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy. Anesth Analg. 2008;107(6):2056.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. McDonnell JG, O’Donnell B, Curley G, et al. The analgesic efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block after abdominal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg. 2007;104(1):193.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Farooq M, Carey M. A case of liver trauma with a blunt regional anesthesia needle while performing a transverses abdominis plane block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2008;33:274–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dasari KB, Algrecht M, harper M. Effect of forced-air warming on the performance of operating theatre laminar flow ventilation. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:244–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Legg AJ, Cannon T, Hammer AJ. Do forced –air patient-warming devices disrupt unidirectional downward airflow? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94-B:244–56.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Junghans T, Modersohn D, Dorner F. Systemic evaluation of different approaches for minimizing hemodynamic changes during pneumoperitoneum. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:763–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Gill IS, Kavoussi LR, Clayman RV, et al. Complications of laparoscopic nephrectomy in 185 patients: a multi-institutional review. J Urol. 1995;154:479.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Brandstrup B, Tonnesen H, Beier-Holgersen R. Effects of intravenous fluid restriction on postoperative complications: comparison of two perioperative fluid regimens: a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 2003;238:641–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Nisanevich V, Felsenstein I, Almogy G. Effect of intraoperative fluid management on outcomes after intraabdominal surgery. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:25–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Parsons JK, Varkarakis I, Rha KH, et al. Complications of abdominal urologic laparoscopy: longitudinal five-year analysis. Urology. 2004;63:27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Davies B. A review of robotics in surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng. 2000;214:129–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Falabella A. Robotic system malfunction: a single institution’s one-year experience. Abstract. 4th international MIRA congress. Int J Med Robot. 2009;6(S1):3.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lavery HJ, Thaly R, Albala D. Robotic equipment malfunction during robotic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Endourol. 2008;22(9):2165–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Borden LS, Kozlowski PM, Porter CR. Mechanical failure rate of the da Vinci robotic system. Can J Urol. 2007;14(2):3499–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Andonian S, Okeke Z, Okeke D. Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of the FDA MAUDE database. Can J Urol. 2008;15(1):3912–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Nayyar R, Gupta N. Critical appraisal of technical problems with robotic urologic surgery. BJU Int. 2010;105:1710–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kaushik D, High R, Clark MA. Malfunction of the da Vinci robotic system during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: an international survey. J Endourol. 2010;24(4):571–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wilcox S, Vandam LD. Alas, poor Trendelenburg and his position! A critique of its uses and effectiveness. Anesth Analg. 1998;67:574–8.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Joris JL, Noirot DP, Legrand MJ, et al. Hemodynamic changes during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Anesth Anal. 1993;76:1067.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Branche PE, Duperret SL, Sagnard PE, et al. Left ventricular loading modifications induced by pneumoperitoneum: a time course echocardiographic study. Anesth Analg. 1998;86:482.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Lavery HJ, Samadi DB, Gainsburg DM. Preventing ocular injuries during robotic prostatectomy: a simple technique. Abstract #800. Eur Urol Suppl. 2010;9(2):257.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Anad H, Santilli S, Ohr M. The effects of steep Trendelenburg positioning on intraocular pressure during robotic radical prostatectomy. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(2):473–8.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Danic MJ, Chow M, Alexander G. Anesthesia considerations for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a review of 1,500 cases. J Robot Surg. 2007;1:119–23.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cheney FW, Domino KB, Caplan RA, Posner KL. Nerve injury associated with anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 1999;90:1062–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Welch MB, Brummett CM, Welch TD. Perioperative peripheral nerve injuries: a retrospective study of 380,680 cases during a 10-year period at a single institution. Anesthesiology. 2009;111(3):490–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Warner MA, Warner DO, Matsumoto JY. Ulnar neuropathy in surgical patients. Anesthesiology. 1999;90(1):54–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Warner MA, Warner DO, Harper M. Lower extremity neuropathies associated with lithotomy positions. Anesthesiology. 2000;93(4):938–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Phong SVN, Kohl LKD. Anaesthesia for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: considerations for laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg position. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2007;35(2):281–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Badawy M, Beique F, Al-Halal H, et al. Anesthesia considerations for robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology. J Robot Surg. 2011;5(4):235–9.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hasson HM. A modified instrument and method for laparoscopy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1971;110:886–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Bonjer HJ, Hazebroek EJ, Kazemier G. Open verses closed establishment of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg. 1997;84(5):599–602.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Hurd WW, Bude RO, DeLancy JO. The relationship of the umbilicus to the aortic bifurcation: implications for laparoscopic technique. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80:48–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Munro MG. Laparoscopic access: complications, technologies, and techniques. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;14(4):365–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Catarci M, Carlini M, Gentileschi P. Major and minor injuries during the creation of pneumoperitoneum. A multicenter study on 12919 cases. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:566–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Hong JY, Kim JY, Choi YD. Incidence of venous gas embolism during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is lower than during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105(6):777–81.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Gildenberg PL, O’Brien RP, Britt WJ, Frost EA. The efficacy of Doppler monitoring for the detection of venous air embolism. J Neurosurg. 1981;54(1):75–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Rasmussen YH, Leikersfeldt G, Drenck NE. Forced-air surface warming versus oesophageal heat exchanger in the prevention of perioperative hypothermia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1998;42:348–52.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Dietterle S, Pott C, Arnold A. The influence of insufflated carbon dioxide gas temperature on the pain intensity after pelviscopic procedures. Min Invas Chir. 1998;7:103–5.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ott DE, Rejch H, Love B. Reduction of laparoscopic-induced hypothermia, postoperative pain and recovery room length of stay by pre-conditioning gas with Insuflow device: a prospective randomized controlled multicenter study. JSLS. 1998;2:321–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Nelskyla K, Yli-Hankala A, Sjoberg J. Warming of insufflation gas during laparoscopic hysterectomy: effect of body temperature and the autonomic nervous system. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1999;43:974–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Wills VL, Hunt DR, Armstrong A. A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of heated carbon dioxide for insufflation on pain and recovery after laparoscopic fundoplication. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:166–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Sumpf E, Crozier TA, Ahrens D. Carbon dioxide absorption during extraperitoneal and transperitoneal endoscopic hernioplasty. Anesth Analg. 2000;91:589–95.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Murdock CM, Wolff AJ, Van Geem T. Risk factors for hypercarbia, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, and pneumomediastinum during laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:704–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Dexter SP, Vucevic M, Gibson J. Hemodynamic consequences of high and low pressure capnoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 1999;13:376–81.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Barczynski M, Herman RM. A prospective randomized trial on comparison of low-pressure (LP) and standard pressure (SP) pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:533–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. O’Malley C, Cunningham AJ. Physiologic changes during laparoscopy. Anesthesiol Clin North America. 2001;19(1):1–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Falabella A, Moore-Jeffries E, Sullivan MJ, et al. Cardiac function during steep Trendelenburg position and CO2 pneumoperitoneum for robotic-assisted prostatectomy: a trans-oesophageal Doppler probe study. Int J Med Robot. 2007;3(4):312–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sharma KC, Brandstetter RD, Brensilver JM, Jung LD. Cardiopulmonary physiology and pathophysiology as a consequence of laparoscopic surgery. Chest. 1996;110(3):810–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Wu HL, Chan KH, Tsuo MY. Severe carbon dioxide retention during second laparoscopic surgery for urgent repair of an operative defect from the preceding laparoscopic surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2008;46(3):124–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. lwasaka H, Miyakawa H, Yamamoto H. Respiratory mechanics and arterial blood gases during and after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Can J Anaesth. 1996;43(2):129–33.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Rauh R, Hemmerling TM, Rist M. Influence of pneumoperitoneum and patient positioning on respiratory system compliance. J Clin Anesth. 2001;13(5):361–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Suh MK, Seong KW, Jung SH, Kim SS. The effect of pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position on respiratory mechanics during pelviscopic surgery. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2010;59(5):329–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Chumillas S, Ponce JL, Delgado F. Pulmonary function and complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eur J Surg. 1998;164:433–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Demyttenaere S, Feldman LS, Fried GM. Effect of pneumoperitoneum on renal perfusion and function: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(2):152–60. Epub 2006 Dec.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Razvi HA, Fields D, Vargas JC. Oliguria during laparoscopic surgery: evidence for direct renal parenchymal compression as an etiologic factor. J Endourol. 1996;10:14.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Harman P, Kron I, McLachlan H, Freedlender A, Nolan P. Elevated intra-abdominal pressure and renal function. Ann Surg. 1982;196:594–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Ahn JH, Lim CH, Chung HI. Postoperative renal function in patients is unaltered after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011;60(3):192–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. London ET, Ho HS, Neuhaus AMC, Wolfe BM. Effect of Intravascular volume expansion on renal function during prolonged CO2 pneumoperitoneum. Ann Surg. 2000;231(2):195–201.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Bäcklund M, Kellokumpu I, Scheinin T, et al. Effect of temperature of insufflated CO2 during and after prolonged laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 1998;12:1126–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Bishara B, Karram T, Khatib S. Impact of pneumoperitoneum on renal perfusion and excretory function: beneficial effects of nitroglycerine. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(3):568–76. Epub 2008 Mar 25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Joris JL, Chiche JD, Canivet JL. Hemodynamic changes induced by laparoscopy and their endocrine correlates: effects of clonidine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:1389–96.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Kehlet H, Holte K. Effect of postoperative analgesia on surgical outcome. Br J Anaesth. 2001;87:62–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Schilling MK, Redaelli C, Krahenbuhl L, et al. Splanchnic microcirculatory changes during CO2 laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;184:378–82.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Odeberg S, Ljungqvist O, Sollevi A. Pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not associated with compromised splanchnic circulation. Eur J Surg. 1998;164:843–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Knolmayer TJ, Bowyer MW, Egan JC, et al. The effects of pneumoperitoneum on gastric blood flow and traditional hemodynamic measurements. Surg Endosc. 1998;12:115–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Thaler W, Frey L, Marzoli GP, et al. Assessment of splanchnic tissue oxygenation by gastric tonometry in patients undergoing laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 1996;83:620–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Schmandra TC, Kim ZG, Gutt CN. Effect of insufflation gas and intraabdominal pressure on portal venous flow during pneumoperitoneum in the rat. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:405–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Junghans T, Böhm B, Gründel K, et al. Does pneumoperitoneum with different gases, body positions, and intraperitoneal pressures influence renal and hepatic blood flow? Surgery. 1997;121(2):206–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Millard JA, Hill BB, Cook PS. Intermittent sequential pneumatic compression in prevention in venous stasis associated with pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg. 1993;128:914–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Hirvonen EA, Nuutinen LS, Kauko M. Hemodynamic changes due to Trendelenburg positioning and pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic hysterectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1995;39(7):949–55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Summers RL, Thompson JR, Woodward LH. Physiologic mechanisms associated with the Trendelenburg position. Am J Clin Med. 2009;6(3):24–7.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Zorko N, Kamenik M, Starc V. The effect of Trendelenburg position, lactated ringer’s solution and 6% hydroxyethyl starch solution on cardiac output after spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analag. 2009;108:655–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Park EY, Koo BN, Min KT, et al. The effect of pneumoperitoneum in the steep Trendelenburg position on cerebral oxygenation. Acta Anaesth Scand. 2009;53:895–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Kalmar AF, Foubert L, Hendrickx JFA, et al. Influence of steep Trendelenburg position and CO2 pneumoperitoneum on cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory homeostasis during robotic prostatectomy. Br J Anaesth. 2010;104(4):433–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Pandey R, Garg R, Darlong V. Unpredicted neurological complications after robotic laparoscopic radical cystectomy and ileal conduit formation in steep Trendelenburg position: two case reports. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2010;61(3):163–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Neudecker J, Sauerland S, Neugebauer EAM. The EAES clinical practice guidelines on the pneumoperitoneum for laparoscopic surgery (2002). In: Neugebauer EAM, editor. EAES guidelines for endoscopic surgery twelve years evidence-based surgery. Berlin: Springer; 2006. p. 48–9.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Chaudhary D, Verma GR, Gupta R, et al. Comparative evaluation of the inflammatory mediators in patients undergoing laparoscopic versus conventional cholecystectomy. Aust N Z J Surg. 1999;69:369–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Buunen M, Gholghesaei M, Veldkamp R. Stress response to laparoscopic surgery: a review. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(7):1022–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Mariano ER, Furukawa L, Woo RK, et al. Anesthetic concerns for robot-assisted laparoscopy in an infant. Anesth Analg. 2004;99:1665–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Abdollah F, Budaus L, Sun M. Impact of caseload on total hospital charges: a direct comparison between minimally invasive and open radical prostatectomy-A population based study. J Urol. 2011;185:855–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57:453–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Patel VP, Tully AS, Holmes R, et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting-the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol. 2005;174:269–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Herrell SD, Smith JA. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology. 2005;66(5 Suppl):105–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(15):1171–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302(14):1557–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Budaus L, Lughezzani G, Sun M. Comparison between complication rates, length of stay and costs of minimally invasive versus open radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;183(Suppl 4):e412.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Rassweiler J, Tsivian A, Ravi Kumar AV. Oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery for urologic malignancy: experience with more than 1,000 operations. J Urol. 2003;169:2072–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Schiedeck TH, Schwandner O, Baca I, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for the cure of colorectal cancer: results of a German five-center study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43:1–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Ndofor B, Soliman PT, Schmeler KM. Rate of port site metastasis is uncommon in patients undergoing robotic surgery for gynecologic malignancies. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011;21(5):936–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Brar SS, Wright F, Okrainec A, et al. A structured strategy to combine education for advanced MIS training in surgical oncologic training programs. Surgical Oncol. 2011;20(3):129–3.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Am S, et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1171–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Ficarra V, Novara G, Cestari A, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1037–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Hegarty NJ, Kaouk JH. Radical prostatectomy: a comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques. Can J Urol. 2006;Suppl 1:56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Meehan JJ, Sandler A. Pediatric robotic surgery: a single-institutional review of the first 100 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(1):177–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Volfson IA, Munver R, Esposito M, et al. Robot-assisted urologic surgery: safe and feasibility in the pediatric population. J Endourol. 2007;21(11):1315–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Van Haasteren G, Levine S, Hayes W. Pediatric robotic surgery: early assessment. Pediatrics. 2009;124(6):1642–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Esposito C, Ascoine G, Garipoli V, et al. Complications of pediatric laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 1997;11(6):655–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Yanke BV, Horowitz M. Safety of the Veress needle in pediatric laparoscopy. J Endourol. 2007;21(7):695–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, City of Hope, 1500 East Duarte Road, Duarte, CA, 91010, USA

    Michael W. Lew M.D. & Michael J. Sullivan M.D., M.S., Ed.

Authors
  1. Michael W. Lew M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Sullivan M.D., M.S., Ed.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael W. Lew M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Anesthesiology and Urolog, Icahn School of Medcine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA

    Daniel M. Gainsburg

  2. The Mount Sinai Medical Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Department of Anesthesiology, New York, New York, USA

    Ethan O. Bryson

  3. The Mount Sinai Medical Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Department of Anesthesiology, New York, New York, USA

    Elizabeth A. M. Frost

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lew, M.W., Sullivan, M.J. (2014). Anesthesia for Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Urological Procedures. In: Gainsburg, D., Bryson, E., Frost, E. (eds) Anesthesia for Urologic Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7363-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7363-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7362-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7363-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation