Anesthesiological Considerations During Robotic Urological Surgery

  • Alan David KayeEmail author
  • Elyse M. Cornett
  • Robert Donner
  • Brendon Hart
  • John Cefalu


Robotic-assisted surgery has become commonplace in medicine since FDA approval of the da Vinci Surgical System in 2000, and the number cases performed using robotic assistance continues to increase nationwide (Lanfranco et al., Ann Surg 239:14–21, 2004). The benefits of robotic-assisted surgery include decreased blood loss, smaller incision sites, reduced hospital length of stay leading to lower total hospital costs, and possibly better patient outcomes (Lanfranco et al., Ann Surg 239:14–21, 2004). While many fields now use robotic-assisted surgeries, the field of Urology remains at the forefront. Robotic systems, when compared to standard laparoscopy, access deep, small spaces in the pelvis with much better articulation. Common urologic robotic-assisted surgeries include radical and simple prostatectomy, nephrectomy (radical, simple, and partial), and cystoprostatectomy with reconstruction. In 2011, 80% of radical prostatectomies were assisted by robotic surgery systems, and to date, it is the most common procedure to utilize the da Vinci robotic system (Hemal and Menon, Curr Opin Urol 14:89–93, 2004).


  1. 1.
    Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg. 2004;239(1):14–21. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hemal AK, Menon M. Robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol. 2004;14(2):89–93. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee JR. Anesthetic considerations for robotic surgery. Kor J Anesthesiol. 2014;66(1):3–11. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaye AD, Vadivelu N, Ahuja N, Mitra S, Silasi D, Urman RD. Anesthetic considerations in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery. Ochsner J. 2013;13(4):517–24. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nguyen NT, Wolfe BM. The physiologic effects of pneumoperitoneum in the morbidly obese. Ann Surg. 2005;241(2):219–26. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hsu RL, Kaye AD, Urman RD. Anesthetic challenges in robotic-assisted urologic surgery. Rev Urol. 2013;15(4):178–84. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mills JT, Burris MB, Warburton DJ, Conaway MR, Schenkman NS, Krupski TL. Positioning injuries associated with robotic assisted urological surgery. J Urol. 2013;190(2):580–4. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irvine M, Patil V. Anaesthesia for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2009;9(4):125–9. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mangham M. Positioning of the anaesthetised patient during robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery: perioperative staff experiences. J Perioper Pract. 2016;26(3):50–2. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sullivan MJ, Frost EAM, Lew MW. Anesthetic care of the patient for robotic surgery. Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2008;19(5):967–82. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghomi A. Robotics in practice: new angles on safer positioning. Contemp Obstet Gynecol. 2012.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ozcan MF, Akbulut Z, Gurdal C, et al. Does steep Trendelenburg positioning effect the ocular hemodynamics and intraocular pressure in patients undergoing robotic cystectomy and robotic prostatectomy? Int Urol Nephrol. 2017;49(1):55–60. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalmar AF, De Wolf AM, Hendrickx JFA, et al. Anesthetic considerations for robotic surgery in the steep Trendelenburg position. Adv Anesth. 2012;30(1):75–96. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Piegeler T, Dreessen P, Graber SM, Haile SR, Schmid DM, Beck-Schimmer B. Impact of intraoperative fluid administration on outcome in patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy—a retrospective analysis. BMC Anesthesiol. 2014;14(1):61. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Díaz M, Becker DE. Thermoregulation: physiological and clinical considerations during sedation and general anesthesia. Anesth Prog. 2010;57(1):25–33. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elvir-Lazo OL, White PF. The role of multimodal analgesia in pain management after ambulatory surgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2010;23(6):697–703. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berger JS, Alshaeri T, Lukula R, Dangerfield P. Anesthetic considerations for robot-assisted gynecologic and urology surgery. Anesth Clin J Anesth Clin Res. 2013;4(48):8. Accessed 12 Dec 2016.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM, et al. Perioperative risk assessment in robotic general surgery: lessons learned from 884 cases at a single institution. Arch Surg. 2012;147(8):701–8. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL, et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol. 2009;182(3):1126–32. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shamim Khan M, Ahmed K, Gavazzi A, et al. Development and implementation of centralized simulation training: evaluation of feasibility, acceptability and construct validity. BJU Int. 2013;111(3):518–23. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prabhakar A, Donnenfeld BL, Kaye AD, Feltmate CM, Urman RD. Concepts in creating an evidence-based anesthetic protocol for robot-assisted laparoscopic pelvic surgery. J Med Pract Manage. 2015;30(6 Spec No):18–23. Accessed 12 Dec 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan David Kaye
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elyse M. Cornett
    • 1
  • Robert Donner
    • 2
  • Brendon Hart
    • 3
  • John Cefalu
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiologyLSU Health Sciences CenterNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Medical Center, Navicent HealthMaconUSA
  3. 3.Samaritan Health ServicesCorvallisUSA
  4. 4.Louisiana State University School of MedicineNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations