Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Urologic Surgery: How to Make an Effective Robotic Program—A European Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery

  • 1017 Accesses

Abstract

Over the last decade the introduction of novel technologies substantially changed our approach to patients with urologic pathologies. Worldwide the number of robotic procedures performed per year is rapidly increasing. In current literature the relevance of robotic surgical training is progressively increasing although it is not easy to define and validate standardized paths for surgeons that are approaching for the first time to robotic surgery. In this context, the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) made several efforts in order to develop and validate an educational program for surgeons starting their robotic career.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
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. Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, Ahlering TE, Artibani W, Carroll PR, et al. Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol. 2012;62:368–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hu JC, Gandaglia G, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy cancer control. Eur Urol. 2014;66:666–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30592-X.

  4. Gandaglia G, Sammon JD, Chang SL, Choueiri TK, Hu JC, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1419–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:431–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Wilson TG, Zattoni F, Montorsi F. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:405–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:418–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C, Maschino AC, Laudone VP, Dechet CB, et al. Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol. 2012;187:2087–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson JE, Egger S, Bohm M, Haynes AM, Matthews J, Rasiah K, et al. Superior quality of life and improved surgical margins are achievable with robotic radical prostatectomy after a long learning curve: a prospective single—surgeon study of 1552 consecutive cases. Eur Urol. 2014;65:521–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Volpe A, Ahmed K, Dasgupta P, Brown M, De Marco V, Gan M, et al. Pilot validation study of the European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum. Eur Urol. 2015;68:292–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ahmed K, Khan R, Mottrie A, Lovegrove C, Abaza R, Ahlawat R, et al. Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: a consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU Int. 2015;116:93–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Khan R, Aydin A, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Ahmed K. Simulation-based training for prostate surgery. BJU Int. 2015;116:665–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schreuder HW, Wolswijk R, Zweemer RP, Schijven MP, Verheijen RH. Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more struc- tured approach: a systematic review. BJOG. 2012;119:137–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sood A, Jeong W, Ahlawat R, Campbell L, Aggarwal S, Menon M, et al. Robotic surgical skill acquisition: what one needs to know? J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11:10–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Fisher RA, Dasgupta P, Mottrie A, Volpe A, Khan MS, Challacombe B, et al. An over-view of robot assisted surgery curricula and the status of their validation. Int J Surg. 2015;13:115–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Leow JJ, Chang SL, Meyer CP, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a contemporary analysis of an all-payer discharge database. Eur Urol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.044.

  17. Luthringer T, Aleksic I, Caire A, Albala DM. Developing a successful robotics program. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(1):40–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL, Soper NJ, Sillin LF, Schirmer B, et al. Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery. 2004 Jan;135(1):21–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sood A, Ghani KR, Ahlawat R, Modi P, Abaza R, Jeong W, et al. Application of the statistical process control method for prospective patient safety monitoring during the learning phase: robotic kidney transplantation with regional hypothermia (IDEAL Phase 2a-b). Eur Urol 2014 Aug;66(2):371–378. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.055. Epub 2014 Mar 4.

  20. Yule S, Rowley D, Flin R, Maran N, Youngson G, Duncan J, et al. Experience matters: comparing novice and expert ratings of non-technical skills using the NOTSS system. ANZ J Surg. 2009;79(3):154–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mottrie A, Novara G, van der Poel HG, et al. The European Association of Urology robotic training curriculum: an update. Eur Urol. 2016;2:105–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: From theory to practice. Anatomy of a decision. JAMA. 1990;263:441–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thiel DD, Lannen A, Richie E, Dove J, Gajarawala NM, Igel TC. Simulation-based training for bedside assistants can benefit experienced robotic prostatectomy teams. J Endourol. 2013;27:230–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB, Cai J, Ng CK, Aron M, et al. Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol. 2011;186:1019–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hung AJ, Patil MB, Zehnder P, Cai J, Ng CK, Aron M, et al. Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol. 2012;187:630–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wiener S, Haddock P, Shichman S, et al. Construction of a urologic robotic surgery training curriculum: how many simulator sessions are required for residents to achieve competency? J Endourol. 2015;29(11):1289–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cacciamani G, De Marco V, Siracusano S, et al. A new training model for robot-assisted urethrovesical anastomosis and posterior muscle-fascial reconstruction: the Verona training technique. J Robotic Surg. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-016-0626-4.

  28. Ahmed K, Jawad M, Dasgupta P, Darzi A, Athanasiou T, Khan MS. Assessment and maintenance of competence in urology. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7:403–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Price DT, Chari RS, Neighbors JD Jr, Eubanks S, Schuessler WW, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the canine model. J Laparoendosc Surg. 1996;6:405–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Aghazadeh MA, Jayaratna IS, Hung AJ, Pan MM, Desai MM, Gill IS, et al. External validation of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS). Surg Endosc. 2015;29:3261–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Culligan P, Gurshumov E, Lewis C, Priestley J, Komar J, Salamon C. Predictive validity of a training protocol using a robotic surgery simulator. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:48–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Flin R, Goeters K, Amalberti R, et al. The development of the NOTECHS system for evaluating pilots’ CRM skills. Hum Factors Aerospace Saf. 2003;3:95–117.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Morgan MS, Shakir NA, Garcia-Gil M, Ozayar A, Gahan JC, Friedlander JI, et al. Single-versus dual-console robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact on intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in a teaching institution. World J Urol. 2015;33:781–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV. Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;170:1738.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology. 2005;66:105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram C. Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol. 2011 Apr;185(4):1191–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, ASUIT, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

    Paolo Umari

  2. Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Urological Research Institute, Milan, Italy

    Giorgio Gandaglia & Nicola Fossati

  3. Department of Urology, Maggiore della Carità Hospital, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy

    Alessandro Volpe

  4. Department of Urology, Onze-Lieve-Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium

    Ruben De Groote & Alexandre Mottrie

  5. ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium

    Alexandre Mottrie

Authors
  1. Paolo Umari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giorgio Gandaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicola Fossati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessandro Volpe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ruben De Groote
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexandre Mottrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Ashok K. Hemal

  2. Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA

    Mani Menon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Umari, P., Gandaglia, G., Fossati, N., Volpe, A., De Groote, R., Mottrie, A. (2018). Robotic Urologic Surgery: How to Make an Effective Robotic Program—A European Perspective. In: Hemal, A., Menon, M. (eds) Robotics in Genitourinary Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20645-5_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20644-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20645-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation